When: RSI divergence + MACD histogram cross OR daily close above 50 SMA ($103) with volume

Then: Stage 3: Final 20-25% of target weight

WAIT: Zero position until confirmed higher low above $83 with RSI divergence, close above 10 EMA at $90.90, and MACD histogram crossing positive—all three required; reduce initial entry to 15-25% of full target if entry taken, stop at $80-82, cap total semiconductor allocation at 50% of full target

• Stop at $73 represents 18% loss from $89, not a tight stop—conservative stop should be $80-82 below recent swing lows
• ATR compressed to $5.40 (46%) but still represents 6% daily volatility on $89 stock; Bollinger lower band at $83.23 only $5.74 below current price
• CEO bought 10M at $95 on August 11, now underwater 6%—insider buying is a 12-24 month conviction signal, not a timing indicator
• Strategic consortium (US government, Nvidia, SoftBank, Apollo) provides no price support commitment—'permanent floor' is a wish, not a floor
• 10Y at one-year highs pushing higher; Polymarket no-cut consensus reinforced from 86.5% to 89% in one week; rates headwind is current, not lagged
• Median parabolic correction is 40-50%, but worst case can be 60-70%; 50% correction from peak puts stock at $71, below 200 SMA
• 50% initial position at $89 with 2.24 beta on unconfirmed pattern is moderate risk, not conservative—true conservative sizing is 15-25%
• All three confirmations required: (1) successful retest of $83-86 forming higher low, (2) close above 10 EMA at $90.90, (3) MACD histogram crossing above zero

→ vs aggressive: Stop at $73 is an 18% loss—that is not risk management, it's a margin call; algorithmic systems pile into 200 SMA on the way down, making it a seller magnet not support

→ vs aggressive: ATR compression to $5.40 still means 6% daily volatility; a normal day moves $5-8, a bad day moves $15—6% daily volatility is not a margin of safety

→ vs aggressive: CEO buy at $95 is 6% underwater—that data shows even the most informed capital got timing wrong; insider buying over 12-24 months is a terrible entry timing signal

→ vs aggressive: Strategic consortium is strategic interest not put option coverage—none of these entities are obligated to bid INTC at any price if it trades to $60

→ vs aggressive: Median correction of 40-50% ignores left tail; planning for median is not planning for worst case where INTC hits $71 and thesis is invalidated

→ vs aggressive: Scaled 50% initial position with 2.24 beta on unconfirmed pattern is moderate risk dressed in scaling language, not conservative risk management

→ vs neutral: HOLD understates the risk-reward problem; correct prescription is zero position until all three confirmations stack—not a held position, not willingness to enter on any single confirmation

30-35% initial entry split between $89-90 and $84-85; $79-80 stop; 60% max exposure cap; scale on MACD cross OR $83 retest forming higher low; await AVGO earnings or size for binary event

• Revenue inflecting from $12.86B in Q2 2025 to $16.13B in Q2 2026 (25% YoY growth)
• Gross margins expanded 13 percentage points
• Free cash flow turned positive on TTM basis for first time in years
• Strategic consortium with US government, Nvidia, SoftBank, and Apollo provides structural backstop
• 200 SMA at $73 is a wall of algorithmic and systematic sellers, not a floor of buyers — stop there means exiting into worst liquidity
• Insider clustering at $95 is conviction overlay for thesis, not an entry trigger; CEO underwater at $95 proves insiders have poor timing
• 18% stop ($73) with 2.24 beta gives up roughly two months of typical portfolio variance on single trade
• Rates regime is a current headwind, not permanent; either cuts come or market normalizes around higher-for-longer
• AVGO reports earnings tomorrow after close — major binary catalyst; INTC has 2.24 beta to AI infrastructure cycle
• Structural thesis is real but entry timing is uncertain; macro environment is hostile; catalyst calendar is front-loaded

→ vs aggressive: The $73 stop at the 200 SMA is planned capitulation — every trend-following system uses 200 SMA as an exit trigger, creating a wall of sellers, not buyers. 18% stop with 2.24 beta gives away too much variance.

→ vs aggressive: Insider conviction is a thesis overlay, not an entry trigger. Using CEO buy at $95 as timing signal ignores that he is now underwater — insiders have documented history of being poor at market timing.

→ vs aggressive: The 'rates are priced in' argument is unjustified. Polymarket moved from 86.5% to 89% in a week (consensus reinforcing, not pricing in), and 10-year yield is at one-year highs, not stable.

→ vs conservative: $80-82 stop is too tight — stock bounced off $80.33 on July 29 and July 31. Will get clipped by normal volatility before basing process completes, leaving trader out of position for subsequent rally.

→ vs conservative: Requiring all three technical confirmations (daily close above 10 EMA, MACD histogram cross, AND RSI bullish divergence) before any scaling is too rigid — by the time all fire, entry will be at $98-103 and risk-reward geometry will be destroyed.

→ vs conservative: 15-25% initial position is undersized for the asymmetry on offer. If thesis plays out and rates stabilize, name could move 30-50% in 6-12 months, delivering only 4-7% portfolio return on 15-25% position.