Criminalisation Surface and Legal Translation

This record provides the series-level synthesis for the five-paper series Criminalisation Surface and Legal Translation: Studies in Victimisation Data, Relational Harm, and Criminal-Law Sorting. The series examines how broad fields of victimisation, relational harm, psychological restriction, and social suffering are translated into criminal-law categories, institutional sorting, investigative exposure, and responsibility-bearing attribution. Its central analytical claim is that harm recognition does not move directly into criminal liability. Between those points lies a process of legal translation through which broad harm fields must be converted into narrower liability fields by means of statutory definition, evidential reconstruction, mechanism identification, attribution, procedural decision-making, and institutional sorting. This synthesis does not introduce new empirical findings, doctrinal claims, or offence proposals. Its purpose is to clarify the cumulative contribution of the five papers, distinguish their analytical functions, document their internal hierarchy, and make their relationship transparent. It includes a series contribution matrix and a detailed overlap and differentiation audit of the two papers examining the Swedish criminalisation of psychological violence. The synthesis positions the series as a legal-translation and criminalisation-oriented subseries within the broader Theorem-Driven Crime Process Research Programme. The five component papers remain independent publications with their own titles, versions, and DOI records. This document provides an interpretive, bibliographic, and metadata framework for understanding them as a coherent research sequence rather than as interchangeable or wholly independent papers. The cumulative contribution of the series is that criminalisation is not analytically exhausted when harm is recognised, named, or formally prohibited. A defensible account of criminalisation must also explain how the passage from harm recognition to responsibility-bearing attribution can remain conceptually coherent, evidentially disciplined, procedurally proportionate, and institutionally bearable.