我国传统理论和司法实务对于刑法因果关系的认知就包容了危险现实化的内容。危险现实化的判断应采取事后视角，着眼于全部因果经过，不以经验通常性作为决定性基准。危险现实化说搭建了动态化考察行为通过具体因果流程对结果施加的贡献的判断框架，一体化完成事实与规范的评价，因此需要揭示出规范考量的内容。刑法中结果归属的规范性目标存在两种定位，即行为规范有效性的确证与结果惹起关联性的确立，违法论的立场对立与之存在关联。违法论的立场会对因果关系的判断采取事前或事后的视角产生影响。相当因果关系说与客观归属论的规范性目标均是行为规范有效性的确证，判断重心在于事前标准的行为规范违反，是将行为不法的认定与归属的评价一体化考虑，追求一般预防。与之相对，危险现实化说的规范性目标是确立行为与结果间的惹起关联，其正当根据应诉诸于报应理念，即行为对于结果发生施加重要贡献的报应性反动。在危险现实化的判断中，没有必要讨论事前标准的行为规范违反或行为危险性，而是应当事后考察危险的实现。危险现实化说的核心标准是行为对于结果发生的贡献，行为贡献的判断不能消解在“结果”“相当性”等要件中，应当在事后视角下独立、正面地进行。单独正犯的危险现实化判断中，行为贡献标准的核心意义在于结果的正犯性归属。行为贡献样态和程度的个别、动态化判断是容纳正犯性评价的根据，可以兼顾自律性介入、自我答责等规范性考虑，并且独立于司法鉴定的结论。按照行为物理贡献的实现样态，危险现实化判断可以区分三种事例类型。第一，行为贡献的“全部实现”，结果发生完全基于行为的物理贡献，重点是判断物理贡献的范围。要事后选取归属的行为，区分影响结果发生的事项是行为危险的内在要素还是独立的介入事项。第二，行为贡献的“间接实现”，结果的发生完全是基于介入事项的物理贡献，重点是判断行为人的行为与介入事项间的关联性。行为对于介入事项发生的贡献可以分为心理性作用关联、状况性关联两种事实类型，还要满足特定构成要件规定的规范性关联的要求。第三，行为贡献的“共同实现”，结果的发生是基于实行行为与介入事项的物理性贡献的共同作用，重点是判断行为对于结果发生直接施加的那部分贡献是否值得作为正犯性归属评价。如果复数行为各自对于结果发生施加的贡献均满足正犯性归属的标准，同时肯定复数的结果归属。

Our traditional legal theory and judicial practice in China have encompassed the notion of actualizing danger within the understanding of the criminal causality. The assessment of actualizing danger should adopt a retrospective perspective, focusing on the entire causal process of real occurrences, rather than relying on empirical generality as the decisive criterion. The theory of danger actualization constructs a dynamic framework for assessing the contribution of specific causal processes to outcomes, integrating the evaluation of facts and norms. Therefore, it is necessary to reveal the normative considerations involved in this framework. There are two normative objectives, the confirmation of the effectiveness of behavioral norms and the establishment of the correlation between actions and results. The position of the theory of illegality is correlated with the aforementioned opposition. The stance of illegality may influence the judgment of causality by adopting either a prospective or retrospective perspective. The normative objectives of the adequate causation theory and objective imputation theory focus on confirming the effectiveness of behavioral norms." The focus of judgment lies in the violation of the code of conduct based on prospective standards, integrating the determination of behavioral illegality with the evaluation of attribution, and aiming for general prevention. The normative objective of the theory of danger actualization is to establish the correlation between actions and consequences, justified by the principle of retribution, where actions significantly contribute to outcomes. Therefore, there‘s no need to discuss the violation of the code of conduct beforehand; instead, the focus should be on examining the actualization of danger retrospectively.The criterion for danger actualization judgment is the contribution of the result. Its assessment should not be diluted within factors such as "consequences" or "equivalence", and it should be independently and positively conducted from a retrospective perspective. The standard for behavioral contribution of individual offenders is an evaluation of principal offender culpability for the outcome. The evaluation is based on individual, dynamic judgments of behavioral contribution, which may also consider normative factors, and is independent of judicial appraisal. According to the realization mode of the physical contribution of actions, three types of scenarios can be distinguished. Firstly, there is the "complete realization" of behavioral contribution, where the outcome is entirely caused by the physical contribution of actions. The emphasis lies in determining the extent of the physical contribution of actions. A retrospective standard should be employed to distinguish between elements of behavioral danger and independent intervening factors. Secondly, there is the "indirect realization" of behavioral contribution, where the outcome is entirely caused by the physical contribution of intervening factors. The main focus lies in assessing the correlation between actions and intervening factors, including psychological correlation, situational correlations, and meeting the requirements of normative correlations. Thirdly, there is the "joint realization" of behavioral contribution, where the outcome is caused jointly by the physical contribution of actions and intervening factors. The main focus lies in determining whether the contribution of actions to the outcome is worthy of evaluation as the principal offense. If the contributions of multiple actions to the outcome meet the criteria for the principal offense individually, the attribution of multiple outcomes can be affirmed simultaneously.