When: Daily close above 200 SMA ($97.32)

Then: First signal of potential re-engagement — combined with other gates

When: MACD histogram crossing toward zero

Then: Second signal confirming momentum shift

When: RSI sustained >40 for 5+ consecutive sessions

Then: Third signal confirming buying pressure

When: Revenue stabilization or comp sales turning positive (+1.3% → -0.2% → -1.4% slope must arrest)

Then: Dispositive gate — dispositive until forward EPS recovery becomes credible; all four gates must align before any re-entry beyond token add-back

SELL - but a real, decisive sell rather than a partial trim; advocate 70-100% position reduction, sell into current 95-96 weakness rather than waiting for 98-104 resistance, tighten risk parameters, eliminate residual "runner" position that lacks analytical justification

• 200-day SMA break represents a regime change, not merely a trim signal - requires deeper than 40% cut
• Price finished below lower Bollinger Band at 93.96 with MACD histogram widening to downside
• Revenue contracted for three straight quarters
• Multiple at 31x has no cushion; 5% yield environment hostile to premium-priced consumer discretionary names
• Execution zone of 98-104 may not materialize - stock can decline from 95 to 90 without testing resistance
• Stop at 104.50 placed above breakdown level functions as invalidation for short thesis, not a true stop
• Japan sale proceeds recycled into debt paydown rather than capital return - not a value catalyst
• Licensing-heavy store expansion is margin dilutive at the wrong moment
• Conservative approach: sell into current weakness at 95-96, accept leaving some upside rather than risking additional drawdown
• Residual position should be deliberate catalyst-driven bet, not accidental leftover from prior view

→ vs aggressive: 25-40% trim leaves 60-75% of position in a confirmed breakdown - not a defensive posture but running most of position into confirmed breakdown because of reluctance to admit original entry was wrong

→ vs aggressive: Execution zone of 98-104 may not materialize - textbook structural break behavior means stock can go from 95 to 90 without offering clean test of resistance, turning 10% loss into 25% loss while waiting

→ vs aggressive: Stop at 104.50 placed above breakdown level only triggers if stock rallies through entire resistance stack - this is an invalidation level for short thesis, not a risk parameter for someone acting on confirmed breakdown

→ vs aggressive: Leave a runner for optionality is hope-driven framing rather than analytical; can't articulate why remaining position will outperform alternative so it shouldn't remain

SELL with 50-60% position reduction; first tranche of 30-35% at market now (95-96), second tranche of 20-25% conditional on price reaching 98-100 zone; residual 40-50% held as defined catalyst bet

• Trim 50-60% of current weight (more than aggressive analyst's 25-40% but less than conservative's 70-100%)
• First tranche: sell 30-35% at market around 95-96 to reduce exposure before further deterioration
• Second tranche: sell 20-25% conditional on price rotating into 98-100 zone where 10 EMA, 200 SMA, and VWMA converge as resistance
• Residual 40-50% treated as deliberate catalyst position, not accidental leftover; bet on Japan deal, restructuring/margin expansion, and deleveraging
• Invalidation at 200 SMA at 97.32 (not 104.50) - first sign structural break was fakeout if price reclaims this level on daily basis
• Portfolio context matters: concentrated 8-10% position leans toward 70% exit; diversified portfolio with other bearish exposure makes 50-60% sufficient
• RSI at 28.97 and close below lower Bollinger Band indicate oversold conditions historically producing reflexive bounces
• Net debt to EBITDA improved from 2.1x to 1.7x in one year; Japan deal at $3 billion and 600-650 store expansion are real optionality not zero

→ vs aggressive: Internal logic broken: cannot keep 60-75% weight while claiming confirmed structural breakdown and price target of 88; 104.50 stop is too far to function as real risk management and only triggers on full thesis failure; 'leave a runner for optionality' is same lazy framing criticized in hold proponents; cannot simultaneously claim catalysts are fully priced in at 30x forward earnings AND justify residual position for catalyst upside

→ vs conservative: Exit driven by fear rather than analysis: selling at RSI 28.97 and below lower Bollinger Band is panic-selling at worst technical levels; should have cut two weeks ago at 107 with 50 SMA as resistance; zeroing exposure forfeits real value-creation optionality including Japan deal, deleveraging progress, and store expansion; confuses being decisive with being early to exit at worst possible fill