Abstract: Since the establishment of the crime of dangerous operations, the judicial dilemma of ineffective preventive function has arisen due to unclear standards for criminalization. By comparing the governance experience of the crime of dangerous driving, this paper proposes an optimization plan based on systematic interpretation. First, the paper advocates defining this crime as a general dangerous crime in the field of production safety, adopting the broadest interpretation of "production and operation" to horizontally cover all industries, vertically include the entire process, and break through the formal constraint of regular business activities, thereby bringing temporary operations with substantial dangers into regulation. Addressing the core pain point of difficult identification of "actual danger", the author constructs a three-stage progressive theory of danger levels, proposing to quantify the urgency and catastrophic threshold of danger through the consequence simulation judgment method to clarify the boundary between administrative violations and criminal offenses. In terms of specific behavioral regulation, the paper innovatively puts forward the theory of protecting the nervous system, arguing that damaging monitoring and alarm facilities attacks the key functions of the safety governance system, and malicious dereliction of duty-where one has exclusive control but knowingly fails to repair faults-should be included in the evaluation scope of "shutting down or damaging" through functionalist interpretation. In addition, the paper sorts out the vertical absorption rules with actual harm crimes and the horizontal concurrence rules with special laws, aiming to realize the substantive function of this crime as a firewall for production safety by activating the reverse connection between administrative law enforcement and criminal justice and constructing a rigorous legal network.