Your list is a sensible one, I agree. However, to me , it is more a list of positive actions to take in composing, proof-reading and editing one's own work.

I'm not sure that they particularly indicate AI produced text. My observation would be that they may just as readily indicate pedestrian or immature writing. I say that because I often found such examples long before ChatGPT or similar existed.

The difference is that, before AI products, most of such writing would not be exposed because it is commonly considered impolite to call out human flaws openly. Criticising a machine, however, is o.k.

Ironically, what may happen now is that poorer written expression by humans may be mistaken for AI produced text and thus rejected!

Is that bad or good? Perhaps, sometimes one and sometimes the other. Personally, I'd prefer issues to be called out, in a polite and encouraging way, such that the author can learn.

For myself, I have little time for AI in human writing or editing. I see it as providing little of use and probably, whatever it does offer, only reducing even further the common laziness and dismissive attitude to grammar, vocabulary, punctuation and nuance of so many. Grammarly, to a lesser degree, perhaps, is similarly prone to false corrections.

I also suggest that there is an ethical problem with its use because, effectively, it constitutes plagiarism. The reality is simply disguised because it plagiarises collectively and then picks from that. I will be interested, too, in research seeking to discover to what degree, if any, AI text increases the similarity of content on any particular topic.

Take care. Stay safe. ☮️