You are making assumptions, and we all know what happens to people who make assumptions. The allegation at hand was that their AIS was not in working order.
From case 138:
A protest committee may protest a boat for a breach of rule 2, but it may decide that action under rule 69 is more appropriate, or in some circumstances action under both. Generally, an allegation of an action that directly affects the competition should be subject to protest under rule 2.
An action that is considered to be an act of misconduct and that does not directly affect the competition should be subject to action under rule 69.
And from the World Sailing Rule 69 Guidance Document:
10.2 The following are examples of misconduct. They are not exhaustive.
10.2.1 Engaging in any illegal activity (e.g. theft, assault, criminal damage)
10.2.2 Engaging in any activity which brings the sport into disrepute
10.2.3 Bullying, discriminatory behaviour and intimidation
10.2.4 Physical or threatened violence
10.2.5 Deliberate damage or abuse of property (including a boat)
10.2.6 Deliberately disobeying the reasonable instructions of event officials
10.2.7 Repeated breaches of rule 2
10.2.8 Inciting others to break rule 2
10.2.9 Deliberately breaking a racing rule with the intention of gaining an advantage
10.2.10 Deliberate interference with another competitor's equipment
10.2.11 Repeating a measurement offence (intentionally or recklessly)
10.2.12 Lying to a hearing
10.2.13 Other forms of cheating such as falsifying personal, class or measurement documents, entering a boat known not to measure, missing out a mark to gain places etc.
10.2.14 Foul or abusive language intended to offend (see below)
Clearly none of your examples are equivalent to those provided by World Sailing, with the possible exception of 10.2.13 but that would be a pretty big stretch.
Now please show me a rule, case or other authoritative document which indicates any of the incidents you mentioned would justify a rule 69 action.