Secondary / integrator: refurbished 8x H100 SXM5 server node (whole-system band)

REFURBISHED full 8-GPU SERVER (Dell PowerEdge XE9680, Xeon Platinum 8462Y+, 8x HGX H100 80GB SXM5 NVLink, with baseboard and host), USD, observed 2026-10-03. This is a configured-system price and is NOT comparable to any bare-card figure in this slice. Implied per-GPU $22,500 is a DIVISION, not an observed card price PERISHABLE-FIGURE STAMP (added 2026-10-04, uniform across data/supply/ so it is greppable). PRICE CLASS: ASKING price - the rate at which a seller advertises the item for sale, NOT a sold, completed or realised transaction price. OBSERVED: 2026-10-03 RE-VERIFY BY: 2027-01-04 - the repo's quarterly re-verification bar. After that date this figure is presumed drifted and must be re-checked against its source before it is quoted again. A price without its observation date is noise; this stamp exists so a reader can tell a fresh figure from a stale one without reading prose. UNIT: REFURBISHED full 8-GPU SERVER (Dell PowerEdge XE9680, Xeon Platinum 8462Y+, 8x HGX H100 80GB SXM5 NVLink, with baseboard and host), USD, observed 2026-10-03 READING RULE: No further perishable flag is published for this figure.

STRUCTURALLY NOT APPLICABLE, and this is the distinction that matters: the lead time for this record's subject is set by construction, electrical service and cooling/CDU plumbing, not by GPU allocation. The accelerator is not the scarce item, so an accelerator lead time is the wrong question - the record's own notes make this argument. Null here means 'wrong question', not 'no data'.

EAR 3A090.a / 3A090.b (advanced-computing ICs) + EAR 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) (D:5/Macau end-user and ultimate-parent) + EAR 744.23 (Entity List screening) + EAR 744.6 (Unverified/MEU lists)

LAYER 1, EXPORT LICENCE: under the Jan 2026 BIS rule 91 FR 1684 (effective 2026-01-15) the license review policy for advanced-computing commodities with TPP < 21,000 AND total DRAM bandwidth < 6,500 GB/s - the NVIDIA H200 and AMD MI325X are the rule's named examples - moved from PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL to CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW, but only for exports FROM THE UNITED STATES to end users located in China or Macau, and only against six exporter certifications filed via SNAP-R before shipment: (1) items below the thresholds with the count of units shipped in the US; (2) sufficient US supply, judged 'taking into account normal lead times'; (3) no diversion of global foundry capacity away from US end users; (4) aggregate China+Macau shipments <= 50% of total US end-use shipments of that product; (5) no end-user or use prohibition; (6) the consignee runs rigorous KYC. Every shipment must then pass a qualified third-party testing lab - US-headquartered, not controlled by a D:5/Macau entity, no ownership stake in any party, qualification revocable by BIS at any time - verifying TPP, total DRAM bandwidth, interconnect bandwidth and copackaged DRAM capacity. Reexports and in-country transfers of the same chips to China/Macau REMAIN PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL. LAYER 2, END-USER AND PARENT SCREENING: per BIS guidance of 2026-05-31 a licence is required where the consignee is HEADQUARTERED in Country Group D:5 (15 CFR part 740 supplement no. 1) or Macau OR whose ULTIMATE PARENT COMPANY is so headquartered - even when the consignee itself sits outside D:5/Macau. The requirement sits at EAR 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) for destinations outside the US, with an exception available only under the license exception at 740.2(a)(9)(ii). The destination country alone therefore never answers the question; screen the parent. LAYER 3, REMAINING LIMITS: exports to D:5/Macau-headquartered OR -parented entities stay PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL wherever the buyer sits, and the AI Diffusion Rule that would have set a country-tier structure on who could lawfully buy what was RESCINDED on 2025-05-13 and is not being enforced, so any recorded status rests on the instruments named here rather than on tiering.

OBSERVATION DATE 2026-10-03. Sources sup-price-serverpartdeals-h100 (the only observed price) and sup-price-picclick-ebay-asking (a second, independent whole-node data point: an 'HGX H100 8*80GB baseboard' listing at $341,872.75 - note that listing is a baseboard whose title does not state whether GPUs are included, so it is logged as corroboration of scale only, NOT as a second price for the same object). STATUS CAVEAT: the ServerPartDeals listing was marked Out of stock / Sold out at observation and its product URL now 404s, so this is a recently-realised price rather than a live one. n=1 for the server basis. WHY THIS RECORD IS THE ANCHOR: dividing by 8 gives $22,500/node for the GPU content, which is BELOW the ~$26,880 SXM asking band and far below the ~$43,000 PCIe asking band. The spread between whole-node and bare-card figures is exactly the systematic error this slice exists to prevent - a node price read as a card price overstates by ~8x, and a card price read as a node price understates by ~8x. EXPORT CONTROL (2026-10-04, mechanism-level; sources spl-eccn-3a090-ccl, spl-bis-2026-01-advanced-computing-case-by-case, spl-bis-2026-05-d5-guidance): these parts classify under ECCN 3A090.a/.b, whose thresholds are 'total processing performance' (TPP) >= 4800, or TPP >= 1600 with performance density >= 5.92 (the .b band is TPP 2400-4800 with performance density 1.6-5.92, or TPP >= 1600 with performance density 3.2-5.92). The mechanism has THREE layers and all three must be cleared, not just one: (a) LICENSE FOR EXPORT FROM THE US - controlled by the January 2026 rule (91 FR 1684, effective 2026-01-15), which moved TPP < 21,000 AND total DRAM bandwidth < 6,500 GB/s parts from presumption of denial to CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW, but only for exports from the US to end users in China/Macau, and only against six exporter certifications - US supply sufficiency judged 'taking into account normal lead times', no diversion of foundry capacity away from US end users, aggregate China+Macau shipments capped at 50% of US end-use shipments, no end-user prohibition, consignee KYC procedures, and prior verification by a qualified third-party US testing lab of TPP, total DRAM bandwidth, interconnect bandwidth and copackaged DRAM capacity; (b) END-USER AND PARENT-COMPANY SCREENING under 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) - per BIS guidance of 2026-05-31 a licence is required where the consignee is HEADQUARTERED in Country Group D:5 or Macau OR ITS ULTIMATE PARENT is so headquartered, EVEN IF the consignee itself is outside D:5/Macau, which means the destination country alone never answers the question; (c) THE LIMITS THAT REMAIN - reexports and in-country transfers of the same chips to China/Macau remain PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL, and exports to D:5/Macau-headquartered or -parented entities remain presumption of denial wherever the buyer sits. The Jan-2025 AI Diffusion Rule was rescinded and not enforced from 2025-05-13, but that rescission did not remove (a) or (b). THE OUTCOME THAT DECIDES A PROCUREMENT (source spl-nvda-10q-fy2027q2-h200-licence-outcome): a licence is necessary but demonstrably NOT sufficient. NVIDIA has been granted H200 licences under exactly this regime and reported that those sales were 'restricted by the PRC government', that it made 'a fraction of the allowed shipments', and that both those shipments and all Data Center Hopper shipments to China in the quarter were LESS THAN 1% of Data Center revenue - alongside a $0.4 billion H200 excess-inventory and purchase-obligation charge. The licences additionally require US inspection before shipment, which attracts a 25% tariff on importation into the US that NVIDIA states it cannot pass on. So a destination-market import approval, not the US licence, was the binding constraint. LEAD TIME: null - and for this record that is the WRONG QUESTION, which is the point worth recording. This record measures a build constraint that is not the accelerator supply chain: the lead time for a 120 kW liquid-cooled rack is set by construction, electrical service, and CDU/manifold plumbing, not by GPU allocation. Its own notes already make this argument for the colo case, so this entry only fixes the boundary: do not read a GPU lead time into a facility lead time, and do not read a facility lead time into a GPU lead time. No vendor publishes a weeks figure for either, so both stay null - probe log in source spl-negative-no-oem-publishes-lead-time. Where a real published horizon exists for the supply side it is on the accelerator record (NVIDIA's $95.2bn purchase and supply/capacity obligations substantially payable through FY2027, source spl-nvda-10k-fy2026-supply-commitments).