Adjacent Categories, Different Organised-Crime Objects?

Organised-crime prevention increasingly draws on evidence produced under adjacent crime categories, including youth gangs, serious group violence, criminal-network recruitment and persistent offending. The categories are policy-adjacent but do not necessarily identify the same empirical object. This article examines what happens when four international intervention cases—G.R.E.A.T., focused deterrence/GVI, Greentown, and Kurve kriegen/Rätt Kurva—are interpreted against one receiving problem: the recruitment of children into Swedish criminal networks. A common, non-compensatory comparison records organisational unit, measured transition or outcome, relational structure, temporal position, intervention locus, target correspondence and the additional claim required for receiving relevance. The cases generate different claim-preserving burdens. G.R.E.A.T. requires a gang-construct and joining-process bridge; GVI requires an outcome bridge from serious group violence to recruitment; Greentown provides the closest recruitment/retention process correspondence but retains a receiving context and carrier burden; and Kurve kriegen/Rätt Kurva requires a bridge from persistent-offending trajectories to network recruitment. The article does not propose a new theory of organised-crime comparability. Its contribution is a bounded empirical demonstration that interventions entering one organised-crime policy problem can carry materially different source crime objects and therefore different evidential entitlements. Publication status: Version 1.0 Zenodo preprint; not peer reviewed. The Zenodo record also contains structured source/comparison matrices supporting the analysis.