Forgive me in advance as I will not be able to adequately run down your list in the amount of time we would both prefer, but I do intend to get around to it eventually at any rate.
At any rate, the following extract from the quote I posted above rather gives the impression that the concept of neutrons is a much vaunted theoretical explanation misrepresented as a discovery in 1932 in order to silence criticism of an aspect of Rutherford's nuclear atom theory.
"But while we can thus disregard details in taking a birds-eye view of the situation, the question as to details must be faced sooner or later, and this has proved to be full of difficulties. It was quickly recognized that the simple picture originally conceived was not capable of representing all of the known facts, and that the nucleus must contain something more than the positively-charged particles. The first hypothesis that was proposed as a means of meeting this situation was that some electrons existed in the atomic nucleus in addition to the extra-nuclear electrons originally postulated, and this was the accepted view for the next twenty years or so. There are, however, some very serious objections to the idea of electrons inside the nucleus, and the theorists gave a sigh of relief in 1932, when the discovery of the neutron supplied a new building block that could be substituted for the nuclear electron. Since 1932 the atomic nucleus has been assumed to consist of protons and neutrons in the appropriate proportions for each element and isotope."