These were based on what is stated in KORWALD, unit histories, type histories, and other sources that I came across and if they didn't get really specific I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Many of the ones you note are not listed, e.g. crashing on a strafing run could be either an accident or AAA but it is a combat loss, no matter which way you slice it. (If he wasn't in combat he wouldn't have been there in the first place, so to speak!)
The air-to-air losses are the cuts I have on and are an attempt to fix a reason for a loss rather than a claim. A B-29 that crashes and is written off on landing due to fatal damage from a MiG-15 is a combat air-to-air loss from my point of view (due to what caused it to crash on landing) but that doesn't make it a victory for some pilot. Rationale is that if it hadn't been shot to bits it would probably not have crashed on landing.
Biggest area of argument between US and Soviet accounts is the number of aircraft that crashed or landed in the Yellow Sea or Gulf of Korea due to air-to-air damage. Soviets still claim them as victories, whereas USAF still lists most of them as "operational non-combat" losses and with no "smoking hole in the ground" says prove it.
Bottom line is that there are NO conclusive source lists for losses by either side (China and the DPRK have none anywhere that I know of, yet lost the highest numbers or percentages of any combatant) so it will always be a subject of debate.