Overclockers UK - UK-region consumer accelerator channel (new stock, no refurb tier observed)

NEGATIVE, DELIBERATELY NOT STRUCTURAL: no lead time in weeks is printed for these SKUs. It is not that no vendor in the chain publishes one - CDW does, and it is recorded on cdw-enterprise as 'published' - but this channel routes to 'request a quote' or shows a stock count instead, so the number exists elsewhere in the market and is not surfaced here. Checked 2026-10-04 per source spl-negative-no-oem-publishes-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.

Recorded to capture a REGIONAL and a RISK observation rather than a used price - deliberately NOT priced, because Overclockers UK publishes no refurbished accelerator tier in the extracted page. Live observation 2026-10-03: Asus GeForce RTX 4090 ROG Strix OC 24GB shown at GBP 2,299.99, explicitly marked 'Price reduced from GBP 2,539.99'. THE USEFUL CROSS-MARKET POINT: at roughly GBP 2,300 (about $3,100) for NEW UK RTX 4090 stock against a best observed US USED 4090 ask of $2,000-$3,000, buying used in the US and new in the UK were within about 1.6x of each other. For GeForce-class consumer silicon the used-versus-new arbitrage had largely closed - the cost of de-installation, testing, re-certification and return-friction eats most of the spread. Used pricing only pays when there is no new supply at all, which is the ex-datacenter A100/H100 case, not the consumer case. UK channel also carries PayPal protection and a 3-year in-store warranty model, and ships many items direct-from-UK with free shipping, which matters for post-Brexit import cost when comparing against US used stock. 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 deliberately so. A marketplace or big-box reseller publishes STOCK STATE, not a lead time - where this record shows in-stock that means the listing was available on the observation date, and where it shows backorder no week window is published at all. Converting one into the other would be an invention. The one exception in the whole chain is CDW, which does print windows (source spl-cdw-published-lead-times-gpu-2026-10); note that even there the scarcest SKUs - the RTX PRO 6000 96GB cards and DGX Spark - read 'Item Backordered' with NO estimate, so scarcity and lead time are inversely related in what distributors actually publish. Probe log in source spl-negative-no-oem-publishes-lead-time.