1) The attacker can attempt a double spend
2) The attacker withholds a transaction to cause economic harm
Incomplete list, and you are ignoring some very important implications.
No that list is complete. Even your link just points out different nuances of using these two actions.
It is complete because these are the only valid actions that the protocol allows a miner to take. (we will disregard a >50% attack on running the protocol code because that effectively just forks bitcoin)
False.
Add, at least:
3. The attacker can refuse to mine on top of certain blocks
(Which prevents such blocks from ever being accepted into the longest chain.) The protocol allows that as well. I'm still not quite sure if this is a complete list.
But your 2. would only be correct if you did not include the phrase "to cause economic harm." The protocol is agnostic about
why something is being done.