I personally don't unreservedly endorse this list for what definitively constitutes an OSR playstyle; and indeed no one is putting it forth as definitive. Googols of electrons have been spilled on this subject elsewhere. But, addressing the points that you dislike:
Re: 6, I think 4 supersedes it and it is not terribly important to defining the OSR playstyle.
Re; 8, I'm not sure you elaborated on that?
Re: 10, I agree, and I don't think *literal, frequent lethality* is definitive of the OSR playstyle; I personally play with some house rules that cause wounds which decrease ability scores at 0HP, though taking significant damage in one stroke can still spell instant death. The point is real, harsh (if warranted) consequences for your actions to help accentuate PCs' agency and a reactive world, rather than situations like 5e clerics reviving people to fighting condition literally before a turn passes while surrounded by foes.
I'm still having trouble with the idea that the OSR only would have rules for direct conflict/combat, when avoiding that is entirely the point of the game. D&D's rules are mostly about combat too, and many other games have a similar framework, but in those games the combat is the point. It feels incredibly counter-intuitive to have a game where the point is to not use the rules.
I'm not quite sure where this came from. Most OSR rulesets do not "only have rules for direct conflict/combat". I think the usual defense of detailed rules for combat is that it represents a high-stakes situation, and so the involved parties likely will desire clear arbitration of how things occur. But check Into the Odd's combat system for a counterpoint:
http://www.bastionland.com/2015/03/describing-auto-hit-in-into-odd.html
http://www.bastionland.com/2017/05/decisive-combat.html