Existing safety evaluation methods for large language models (LLMs) suffer from inherent limitations, including evaluator bias and detection failures arising from model homogeneity, which collectively undermine the robustness of risk evaluation processes. This paper seeks to re-examine the risk evaluation paradigm by introducing a theoretical framework that reconstructs the underlying risk concept space. Specifically, we decompose the latent risk concept space into three mutually exclusive subspaces: the explicit risk subspace (encompassing direct violations of safety guidelines), the implicit risk subspace (capturing potential malicious content that requires contextual reasoning for identification), and the non-risk subspace. Furthermore, we propose RADAR, a multi-agent collaborative evaluation framework that leverages multi-round debate mechanisms through four specialized complementary roles and employs dynamic update mechanisms to achieve self-evolution of risk concept distributions. This approach enables comprehensive coverage of both explicit and implicit risks while mitigating evaluator bias. To validate the effectiveness of our framework, we construct an evaluation dataset comprising 800 challenging cases. Extensive experiments on our challenging testset and public benchmarks demonstrate that RADAR significantly outperforms baseline evaluation methods across multiple dimensions, including accuracy, stability, and self-evaluation risk sensitivity. Notably, RADAR achieves a 28.87% improvement in risk identification accuracy compared to the strongest baseline evaluation method.