If I could just respond to that, I take some of your points.
For me, personally—again, this is just my anecdotal experience—coercive control takes the form of manipulation. It is manipulation that is meant to control but isn't criminal harassment, even if it is repetitive or unwanted behaviour. The person might not even realize that they're under the thumb of their abuser. Often, in my experience, it takes the form of things that aren't illegal. Having a bank account and controlling all of the finances, isolation of a person that is so coordinated as to leave the victim vulnerable.... That isn't covered under human trafficking. It's not covered under assault or criminal harassment, but its end goal is to ultimately leave the person more vulnerable.
I take your point about the nuances in the law and the difficulty of proof. Maybe it's incumbent on us to change some of the enumerated ways of identifying it.
In 20 seconds, what do you say to that?