When: TWO consecutive closes >$353 with volume >1.3M, RSI>40, and MACD histogram positive

Then: Consider re-entering with new capital after full confirmation stack fires

Sell 25% into 340-350 resistance zone; hold 75% with a 305 stop; zero new capital until technical repair confirms

• RSI at 20.69 is the lowest reading in the visible window — mean reversion from these extremes is a base rate, not a guess
• Resistance stack from 340 to 353 is dense with four stacked technical hurdles and confirmed macro headwind
• 50 SMA at 371.35 and 200 SMA at 353.44 are still 18 dollars apart; 200 SMA rising modestly from 346.68 end of July
• MACD histogram moderating from negative 1.86 to negative 1.68; ATR declining — subtle signs of selling pressure exhaustion
• Death cross requires 50 SMA to decline ~18 dollars over 36 trading days at a pace not seen in current down-leg
• GD has a 0.32 beta — holds up in S&P selloffs; government-funded multi-year backlogs don't reprice with 10-year yields
• Virginia-class submarine contracts adjust at congressional appropriations cycle, not financial market dynamics
• 17.8% ROE, 56% YoY net debt reduction, and resumed buybacks are forward indicators of capital allocation discipline
• 305 area is a real floor level — late-April swing low, 52-week low at 306.77, and attractive FCF yield on a free cash flow basis
• 25% trim already realizes meaningful portion of downside protection on the 75% remaining position
• Downside cascade to 280s requires 200 SMA break AND 305 support failure AND waterfall — each step has meaningful probability of holding
• Q3 earnings print roughly 3 weeks away (late October) is a known catalyst that could re-rate stock in either direction
• Aggressive analyst frames 6.4% upside to 200 SMA versus 8% downside to 305 break but ignores 25% trim already locks in partial downside protection

→ vs aggressive: 25% vs 30% trim on 1,000 shares is difference of 50 shares of dry powder; RSI-20.69 short-squeeze setup makes leaving that optionality on table malfeasance

→ vs aggressive: Death cross treated as near-deterministic but historically has documented failure rate; MACD histogram moderating and ATR declining suggest selling pressure exhausting

→ vs aggressive: Asymmetry argument of 6.4% upside vs 8% downside ignores that 25% trim already protects 75% of position and downside assumes three-step cascade all failing

→ vs aggressive: Bond market and equity market not perfectly correlated; 10-year yield rollover before death cross fires would mean technical repair prints faster

→ vs neutral: Defense structural story is real but 15% trim is too small given confirmed downtrend and 75% position preserves that structural exposure

Trim of 27-28%, staged execution, stop tightened to 315 before earnings, two-session re-entry confirmation filter

• Technical damage is broader and more confirmed than a simple oversold bounce can repair quickly; 27-28% trim is better than the trader's 25%
• Trim should be staged: sell 15% of position at 342-348 with limit orders, hold remaining 10-13% to execute only on confirmed reversal candle at 350 with volume above 1.5 million shares
• MACD histogram moderating from -1.86 to -1.68 and declining ATR contradict aggressive bear case; death cross firing into moderating momentum is different from death cross firing into accelerating downside
• RSI 20.69 is the lowest reading in the visible window; trimming 30% into violent mean reversion bounce creates 5% underweight risk if price reclaims 350 and fills gap toward 365 or 370
• Fundamentals do not establish intraday floors; 17.8% ROE did not hold GD at 305 in April; the actual floor is where buyers step in, with evidence only at 305 from April
• Re-entry specification needs tightening: close above 353 must hold for two consecutive sessions, not just one, due to high failure rate on single-session 200 SMA reclaims
• Q3 earnings in roughly three weeks is a defined catalyst window; stop should be tightened from 305 to 315 just before earnings to avoid positive surprise sweep

→ vs aggressive: Death cross analysis overstates the setup; 50 SMA and 200 SMA remain 18 dollars apart, and MACD histogram moderating from -1.86 to -1.68 contradicts sustained selling needed to close that gap in six weeks

→ vs aggressive: Underweighting mean reversion risk at RSI 20.69; trimming heavily into the exact moment when mean reversion is statistically most likely is a behavioral error that could leave the position 5% underweight if price fills gap toward 365-370

→ vs aggressive: 280s waterfall requires stacking three sequentially unlikely outcomes (sustained 200 SMA break, 305 area failure, no positive catalyst), not a base case scenario

→ vs conservative: Fundamentals as a floor is not a trading argument; 17.8% ROE did not hold GD at 305 in April and will not print intraday support when the chart breaks

→ vs conservative: Mean reversion risk does not override the broken technical setup; the trim can work if the bounce stalls at 345 or if it fails entirely and goes straight to 315