Skip to content
Back to Scenario Playbooks
United States (Federal)China (Mainland)GlobalAI hardware & computeGenAI & foundation models

AI hardware and compute going global: two-way export controls, end users and model-weight transfers

A China-based company sells AI accelerators, servers, edge inference modules or compute services abroad, or builds/rents compute offshore and moves model weights, technical data and toolchains between China and other jurisdictions.

Verified against official sources · 2026-09-12Verified against official text

Prerequisites

  • A complete bill of materials and technology inventory exists: chips, boards, systems, firmware, compilers and inference frameworks, and model weights, each traceable to a supplier and origin.
  • You can describe the route of every shipment and every technology transfer: who sends, who receives, which countries it passes through, where it is finally installed, and who can access it.
  • This playbook is explicitly two-way: it runs through the US Export Administration Regulations (including the extraterritorial foreign direct product rules) and through China’s Export Control Law and Dual-Use Items Export Control Regulations, and both sets of conclusions can apply at once.
  • Nothing here offers a route around controls; every stage aims at making the transaction filable, documented and explainable.

Stages (24–42 weeks, estimate)

  1. 1. Stage 1 — Classifying items and technology (both directions)

    3–5 weeks

    Produce a classification conclusion, with reasoning retained, for every item of hardware, software, technology and model weights. On the US side complete ECCN classification, paying particular attention to the dedicated entries for advanced computing items and AI model weights. On the China side classify goods, technology, services and technical data under the Export Control Law and identify any data that is itself a controlled item. Classification is the foundation of everything that follows: one wrong call puts licences, screening and recordkeeping on a false premise.

    Obligations in this stage

    Evidence to retain

    • · Classification register (item × ECCN × China control-list entry × basis × determiner × date)
    • · Supplier classification statements and certificates of origin
    • · Model-weight classification record (parameter scale, training compute and intended use)
    • · Technical-data inventory (design documents, process, test data) with classification conclusions

    Common blockers

    • · Adopting a supplier’s verbal classification as your own: the exporter is independently responsible for the conclusion, and the supplier’s view is only one input.
    • · Classifying hardware but not software and weights: toolchains and model weights are often the most sensitive part of the control set.
    • · Unversioned classification conclusions: entries get amended, and “we classified it back then” is not “it still holds”, so a re-check cadence is required.
  2. 2. Stage 2 — Extraterritorial reach and the foreign direct product rules

    3–5 weeks

    Answer the question many companies assume does not concern them: “can a supply chain I built offshore be pulled into US controls because it used US technology or equipment?” That is exactly what the foreign direct product rules are for. Also assess how the AI model-weights entry affects cross-border weight transfers, and the current status and suspension-expiry of the affiliates-related rules — the timetable for these rules itself moves, so you need a monitoring mechanism rather than a one-off determination.

    Obligations in this stage

    Evidence to retain

    • · Assessment of US technology/equipment content in offshore lines and supply chains
    • · FDP applicability memorandum (each rule × conclusion × basis)
    • · Cross-border model-weight transfer register (source, destination, who has access, technical controls applied)
    • · Rule-change tracker (effective dates, suspension dates, expiry dates and owners)

    Common blockers

    • · Assuming “the whole line is offshore so we are out of scope”: extraterritorial rules look at the origin of technology and equipment, not the location of the line.
    • · Reading a suspension as a repeal: suspensions run for a defined period and revert on expiry, so plan against the reversion date.
    • · Handling model weights as “data” rather than as controlled technology: the access controls, personnel scope and recordkeeping requirements are entirely different.
  3. 3. Stage 3 — End-user and end-use diligence and list screening

    4–6 weeks

    Build a screening gate that cannot be bypassed: before every shipment, screen against the Entity List and restricted end users, run end-use diligence against the “knows or has reason to know” standard, and obtain and verify end-user and end-use certificates. China’s Dual-Use Items Regulations expressly require obtaining and verifying such documents and, on discovering a risk situation, immediately stopping the export, reporting it and cooperating with verification — a mandatory duty at the moment of trigger, not something to be back-filled.

    Obligations in this stage

    Evidence to retain

    • · Per-shipment screening records (tool used, list version date, hits and reasons for clearance)
    • · End-user and end-use certificates plus verification records
    • · Red-flag indicator list and escalation procedure (the rule that halts a shipment on trigger)
    • · Records of export stoppage and reporting for suspicious circumstances
    • · Compliance undertakings from distributors and agents, with annual re-verification records

    Common blockers

    • · Screening once at onboarding: lists are updated continuously, so re-screen at every shipment and renewal and record the list version date.
    • · End-user certificates obtained through an intermediary with no way to verify them: holding a piece of paper is not diligence, and the verification itself must be documented.
    • · Consulting sales before acting on a red flag: the correct order is stop first, then assess, then decide on filing and resumption.
  4. 4. Stage 4 — Licence applications, licence exceptions and conditions

    6–12 weeks

    Let classification and screening decide the route: apply for a licence, rely on a licence exception, or decline the transaction. On the US side, the licence determination and review policy for advanced computing items, and the notification, certification and reporting conditions attaching to the AI authorisation licence exception, must be designed into the deal structure up front. On the China side, obtain the export licence and export strictly within its stated scope, conditions and validity; outbound transfer of restricted-category technology additionally requires a technology export licence first. Licensing is a queued administrative process and must be scheduled on administrative, not commercial, cycles.

    Obligations in this stage

    Evidence to retain

    • · Licence application packages and acceptance/decision records (application and decision dates)
    • · Licence-condition compliance register (each condition × how it is met × verification evidence)
    • · Licence-exception reliance records (evidence conditions are met, notification and certification materials, filing receipts)
    • · Technology export licence application and decision, where restricted-category technology is involved
    • · Internal controls on export scope and validity to prevent out-of-scope or expired shipments

    Common blockers

    • · Treating a licence as a one-off credential: it states scope, conditions and validity, and exporting outside that scope is as serious in law as exporting without one.
    • · Relying on a licence exception without the notification and reporting: exceptions are conditional, and unmet conditions forfeit eligibility.
    • · Moving technology out through personnel carry-on or cloud access to avoid filing: deemed exports are equally controlled and far harder to explain afterwards.
  5. 5. Stage 5 — Internal export compliance programme and deemed-export controls

    5–8 weeks

    Freeze all of the above into an internal compliance programme: role separation, approval flow, training, internal audit and recordkeeping (China requires export-related materials to be retained for at least 5 years; US transaction recordkeeping has its own requirements). The technical difficulty here is deemed exports: access to controlled technology and software by foreign-national employees, offshore subsidiary staff and visiting researchers must be managed as an export, and China applies its own deemed-export concept to the provision of controlled items to foreign organisations and individuals. In addition, requests from a foreign government for export-control visits or on-site verification must be reported immediately — the rule most often broken in practice by the instinct to cooperate first and ask later.

    Obligations in this stage

    Evidence to retain

    • · Export compliance programme documentation (responsibility matrix and approval authority)
    • · Controlled-technology access matrix (nationality, location, scope of access, basis of authorisation)
    • · Training records and coverage (with emphasis on R&D, sales, legal and IT)
    • · Recordkeeping plan (at least 5 years on the China side; per the applicable period on the US side)
    • · Templates for receiving and escalating foreign-government visit or verification requests
    • · Internal audit reports and closed-loop remediation records

    Common blockers

    • · Managing deemed exports for postings but not for access: permissions on cloud code and model repositories are themselves an access path.
    • · Cooperating directly with a foreign enforcement or verification request: Chinese law requires prior approval from the competent authority before providing data to foreign judicial or law-enforcement bodies, and the Dual-Use Regulations require immediate reporting.
    • · Records scattered across business systems: when production is demanded, an incomplete chain has the same consequence as no records at all.
  6. 6. Stage 6 — Outbound investment, corporate structure and ongoing monitoring

    3–6 weeks

    Move the compliance judgement upstream into deal structure: covered-transaction determination under the US Outbound Investment Security Program, identification of prohibited AI and chip activities, the notification deadline for notifiable transactions, and the “reasonable and diligent inquiry” needed to meet the knowledge standard; controlled foreign entities additionally require “all reasonable steps” and prevention of direction by US persons. On the China side, build technology-export compliance into outbound deal structures and share reorganisations, and track catalogue amendments. The output of this stage should flow straight into investor and customer diligence materials.

    Obligations in this stage

    Evidence to retain

    • · Ownership and control chart (traced to ultimate beneficial owners and any US-person involvement)
    • · Covered-transaction determinations and the “reasonable and diligent inquiry” workpapers
    • · Notification filings for notifiable transactions with filing dates recorded
    • · Control measures for controlled foreign entities and evidence of their execution
    • · Change tracker for the technology catalogue and control lists

    Common blockers

    • · Deferring structure questions to the financing round: discovering an unfiled covered transaction during diligence usually terminates the deal.
    • · A “reasonable and diligent inquiry” with no workpapers: any defence on the knowledge standard rests entirely on the written record of the inquiry.
    • · Tracking only the US rules and not China’s technology catalogue: catalogue amendments directly change the licensing requirement for outbound technology transfer.

Common failure modes

  • · Looking at only one side of the controls. A single transaction can be subject to both China’s Export Control Law and the US EAR, and any plan that clears only one is incomplete.
  • · Delegating classification to engineers as a technical question: classification is a legal conclusion requiring engineering input, legal judgement and an audit trail.
  • · Scheduling licence applications on commercial timelines: licensing is an administrative process, and queue time does not respond to sales commitments.
  • · Treating model weights as ordinary file transfers: weights have dedicated control entries and licence-exception conditions, and handling them as files collapses access control and recordkeeping at once.
  • · Operating as if a suspended, transitional or proposed rule were repealed: suspensions expire, proposals land, and the correct response is a tracker plus scheduling against the most conservative effective-date assumption.
  • · Routing orders through offshore shells to “decouple”: such arrangements are readily identified under end-user diligence and affiliate review, and they escalate civil exposure into criminal exposure.

Sources (17)

Content as of 2026-09-12 · corpus 2026.09|Compiled from public official sources with links and review dates for compliance decision support. Rules change; have licensed professionals review before external disclosure, regulatory filing or contractual commitments.

GDPR · PIPL · CCPA control mapping
Traceable AI · cited when sourced
ISO 27001 alignment in progress
WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility target
AI hardware and compute going global: two-way export controls, end users and model-weight transfers · Scenario playbook | HaiWen HQ