I miss the most important criterion:
How fair are the tokenomics? The more coins were reserved for "devs" and often even for a "Foundation", the less sustainable the coin is, because devs will lose interest once they dumped their premine.
Another important criterion is: what's the target demographic? Does the coin solve a problem? Is an interesting ecosystem existing (tokens, services) or at least a plan to attract services (in the case of new coins)?
The other criteria listed in the OP are "so-so":
- Is it a promising coin where new technology is used?
Almost irrelevant. "New technologies" since 2015 or so are mostly technobabble. Almost all coins are based on 1999 tech (PBFT), including Ethereum. And if a new breakthrough is made, most coins can adopt it.
- Are developers very experienced and professional to set up a good Code?
Somewhat relevant, but they can be both "professional" and scammers.
- Is it a coin involved in fraud
If a coin is directly a scam (e.g. Zoe Cash, OneCoin, Bitconnect, ZKsats) then it is a scam and will die very fastly. The coins you listed are not very interesting coins but also not really fraudulent ones.
- Is it a coin where security has been good or weak (avoid hacked coins)
Depends. Grin is quite good even if it has been 51% attacked.