احمد محمدی سهروردی

This article proposes habeas narrativum: a translation protocol that treats literary form as procedural evidence within legal discourse and converts scenes of injury in Kafka’s The Trial into administrable minima for decisions in informational regimes. Rather than reading Kafka as allegory or doctrine, the method isolates recurrent formal injuries (non-notice, non-reasons, secret files, and credibility theater) and renders them as four predicates that make authority answerable: (1) prospectively intelligible notice identifying the items at issue, the operative rule text, and the time window; (2) review-ready reasons that are case specific, traceable to the disclosed record, falsifiable by counterevidence, and timely; (3) access and rectification through a contestable record bundle; and (4) a standard of review that prefers evidence over demeanor heuristics and specifies remedies keyed to missing predicates. Read this way, The Trial functions as a forensic archive whose scenes document which minima are absent and, therefore, what a reviewer must be able to demand on the record. To demonstrate portability beyond the literary court, a brief platform-moderation mini-case shows how these predicates reorganize routine review: requiring itemized notices, record-tied reasons, and rectification channels without demanding model transparency, thereby turning literary diagnosis into enforceable review practice in contemporary legal discourse.