When: $267 with confirmed close below 10 EMA and RSI reset toward 50

Then: Deploy 20-25% of target allocation

When: $260 near 200 SMA with macro pivot

Then: Deploy 15-20% of target allocation

When: Scale-in zone not filled within 5 sessions before Q3 earnings

Then: Convert to post-Q3 earnings deployment within 5% of price if bull case confirmed

When: Revenue ≥$5.5B, FCF ≥$1.8B, GM ≥60%, book-to-bill >1.0, FY2026 FCF guide $7B+

Then: Upgrade to Buy; deploy remaining capital within 5% of post-earnings price

When: Soft industrial/auto commentary, GM <57%, guidance disappointment

Then: Downgrade to Hold; 15-20% trim; watch $260 for re-entry

Initiate 25-30% of target allocation at $281 with scale-in framework at $275, $267, $260; maintain hard stop at $248; wait for Q3 print to confirm thesis before committing full size

• At $281, TXN trades near the upper Bollinger band with ~12% capital at risk on initial tranche before scale-ins
• Forward P/E of 26.4x remains above 10-year average range of 18-22x, priced for perfection
• 10-year yield at post-2002 highs represents structural valuation cap; 97% probability of zero Fed cuts compresses multiples
• Beta of 1.31 means any Q3 disappointment or broader market weakness could send stock to 50 SMA at $270 or worse
• The 22.8% YoY revenue surge may be front-loaded inventory restocking that won't repeat in Q3
• Aggressive 50% initial position is front-loading risk before confirmation; recommend 25-30% instead
• Q3 catalyst cuts both ways in an information vacuum; waiting for confirmation is sequence-of-returns risk management

→ vs aggressive: The 11% rally in 22 days is described as 'buying exhaustion' that often precedes pullbacks in cyclicals; the 24% peak-to-trough decline from $334 to $253 demonstrates this name's volatility

→ vs aggressive: The 'quiet news cycle is opportunity' claim is dangerous—information vacuums mean the next catalyst cuts both directions, not just upward

→ vs aggressive: The 'near 52-week high' rebuttal fails to account for different rate environments; $334 was set under peak liquidity conditions that no longer exist

→ vs aggressive: The aggressive analyst concedes multiple compression is a risk yet still recommends full position—that's an internal contradiction in the risk/reward framework

→ vs neutral: The scale-in framework at $275, $267, $260 and $248 hard stop are sensible, but the initial position should be 25-30%, not 50%

Initiate 35-40% of target allocation now; scale in at 275, 267, and 260; add remaining capital within 5% of post-earnings price if Q3 confirms without pullback; maintain $248 hard stop and SOXX/SMH hedge above 3% of book

• Modify aggressive's 50% initial tranche down to 35-40% to preserve dry powder and avoid pre-positioning ahead of Q3 binary catalyst
• Keep scale-in framework at 275, 267, and 260 but add rule: if Q3 prints clean and no pullback occurs, deploy remaining capital within 5% of post-earnings price rather than waiting indefinitely
• Fair valuation (26.4x forward P/E) supports BUY direction but does not justify aggressive chasing; within 20-30x historical range but not cheap
• Technical extension: price 12 points above VWMA, Bollinger upper band at 285 only $4 away, pullback targets at 10 EMA (275) or 50 SMA (270)
• Macro risk is real but moderate: yields at post-2002 highs cap multiples, but Polymarket no-recession pricing suggests inflation/term premium move rather than growth scare
• Q2 FCF inflection is actual: $2.19 billion generated, exceeding 80% of full-year 2025 consensus; ROE at 35%; capex has stepped down materially
• Probability of filling one scale-in level (270-275) over next 4-6 weeks is meaningfully higher than 50% given extension and binary Q3 catalyst
• Conservative's passive approach still risks chasing at $310-320 if Q3 confirms via post-earnings squeeze in late October
• Yields-as-growth-fear vs yields-as-inflation signal distinction matters: inflation-driven grind is more manageable for TXN than growth scare

→ vs aggressive: Claim that market has 'already digested' higher-for-longer narrative is incorrect; yields at post-2002 highs don't get digested in three weeks and cap multiples for quarters

→ vs aggressive: 'Quiet news cycle is opportunity' is actually front-running a binary catalyst, not an asymmetric one; Q3 is equally likely to disappoint on industrial/auto commentary as to beat

→ vs aggressive: 22.8% revenue surge could be front-loaded inventory restocking that doesn't repeat; this scenario is not given sufficient weight

→ vs aggressive: Own line that 'even if multiples compress another turn or two, earnings growth more than offsets' concedes the macro headwind is real AND earnings must deliver perfectly, undermining the case

→ vs conservative: Passive approach still puts capital at risk at $281 with 12% drawdown to stop; 25% vs 50% only changes dollar amount of pain, not probability of being right

→ vs conservative: Waiting for Q3 confirmation in late October risks chasing at $310-320 after post-earnings squeeze, trading one form of risk for another

→ vs conservative: Historical forward P/E comparison of 18-22x may not be representative; TXN has spent most of last decade trading 20-30x, making 26.4x within range

→ vs conservative: FCF inflection is a print ($2.19 billion in Q2 alone), not a projection; conservative is not giving enough credit to confirmed data