Geizhals (DE/AT price comparison and merchant routing)

lead_time_weeks is null because no lead time applies: this is a secondary/auction market priced per listing. What a buyer faces is listing availability at the moment of purchase - the record's availability field is a snapshot of what a seller posted, not a schedulable delivery date - plus whatever shipping the listing states. An auction close date is not a lead time.

EAR 3A001 or EAR99 (below the 3A090.a TPP / performance-density thresholds) + EAR 744.23 (Entity List) + EAR 744.6 (Unverified / MEU lists)

MECHANISM: the part falls BELOW the ECCN 3A090.a/.b TPP and performance-density thresholds, so the advanced-computing licence regime, its case-by-case China/Macau carve-out and its D:5 screening do NOT attach. What remains is the general EAR plus destination-country import rules and screening of the consignee and its ultimate parent against the Entity, Unverified and MEU lists. NO LICENCE REQUIRED for the sale itself; the screening is a party-listing check, not a performance-threshold check. The binding ECCN determination for any specific part is the exporter's own classification, not this record.

availability is 'unknown' at the channel level because Geizhals aggregates ~30 EU merchants whose stock states differ per listing - only the per-SKU 'Auf Lager' markers are reliable. Not a seller: Geizhals is a price aggregator that routes to ~30 EU merchants, which is why it is the best available read on EU price bands and stock state. EUR figures observed 2026-10-03, all incl. VAT excl. shipping, and deliberately NOT converted to USD here because no exchange rate was sourced: RTX 5090 ASUS ROG Astral from EUR 5,131.85 (13 offers, top of list EUR 7,424.00); RTX 4090 Founders Edition at EUR 3,989.99; Arc B580 ASRock Challenger from EUR 314.90 (per-shop shipping EUR 4.99-9.99, free above EUR 500 order value); ASUS ROG Strix RTX 3090 showing 'Auf Lager' but with the page-level price field empty on the day. For RDNA4 consumer boards it shows a GIGABYTE RX 9070 XT Gaming OC from EUR 757.16, close to the US $829.99 seen at B&H. Fetch reliability was poor: many requests returned an anti-bot error, and the list views intermittently omitted prices that the product pages carried. EXPORT CONTROL (2026-10-04, mechanism-level; source spl-eccn-3a090-ccl): consumer gaming cards of this generation generally do NOT meet the 3A090.a TPP/performance-density parameters and fall under ECCN 3A001 or are designated EAR99, i.e. the advanced-computing licence regime with its case-by-case and D:5 screening does not attach to them. This is exactly what makes export status a PER-PART property rather than a per-vendor one: a GeForce RTX 5090 and a datacenter/professional part from the same vendor and the same process generation can carry entirely different control status. Recorded as false for that reason, NOT because the part is unregulated - it remains subject to the EAR generally, to destination-country import rules, and to screening of the consignee and its ultimate parent against the Entity, Unverified and MEU lists (15 CFR part 744). The binding ECCN determination for any specific SKU is the exporter's own classification, which no public vendor page states. LEAD TIME: null and it is an EXPLICIT NEGATIVE, checked 2026-10-04. This is a quote-only channel - no price and no lead time is published on any page, and AGENTS.md forbids inventing an unsourced number, so the field stays null with the reason recorded. The negative is itself a procurement fact: a channel that will not state a lead time is a channel where the lead time is set by whatever allocation you happen to have, and it is exactly the kind of number to ask for in writing before signing. Probe log and per-vendor detail in source spl-negative-no-oem-publishes-lead-time; the one figure published anywhere in this chain is AWS's 8-week MAXIMUM Capacity Block booking horizon, which is a commitment ceiling rather than a delivery time.