My sense is that you are falling into a mental trap by following those who try too hard to segregate sub-types, as is often done by noir analysts. That's why there are lists that are excessively restrictive--and that's why there is a noir-o-meter approach which makes sure that 95% of the films Dan champions can be placed on a common scale (and I say this knowing that Dan would like to throw out about 80% of the "noir elements" that actually help his case).

I also think you may be taking several of my critiques of neo-noir too literally (overdetermination) and trying to find films that operate more like what we see in classic noir. (There is a bit of that in how Dan takes to GONE, because it is clearly an updated take on "women in distress/peril" pushed up by/against feminism. The arc of the film's tone is so over the edge that many folks who agree with the underlying ideology still have a backlash with it (reviews from crtics and the "commons" demonstrate this; I would suggest that they are reacting as much to its heavy-handed application of classic noir narrative devices as they are to the escalating stridency of the lead character. IOW, many respond viscerally against a mash-up of old-style narrative techniques and post-modern bombast.) Let's also consider revisiting the neo-noir-o-meter that you devised and how it differs from the one devised for the classic period. The differences you traced may help to explain some of that dissonance...

If you are looking for neo-noirs that operate more like classic noirs, we will be throwing out almost all of the neo-noirs eventually.

As to gangster/criminal bio-films, one has to determine if they are providing a straightforward, semi-factual narrative, or whether they are presenting instead (or in addition to the former) a psychological or sociological panorama of forces that have warped the characters. A film that probes those workings, even if it doesn't provide the lead character a chance to comment directly (a classic noir narrative device: think of the voiceover of the Caryl Chessman surrogate character played/voiced by William Campbell in 1955's CELL 2455, DEATH ROW), has landed in the noir universe.

Here comes that term again--the one that sustains a thread (however slender it might get) between noir and neo-noir: alienation. If one is alienated from the world to a large enough degree, one slips into dysfunction...and one outcome of that is criminality.

As for MONSTER, let's examine one account of the underpinnings of the Wournos character, as taken from Roger Ebert's review of the film:

The crimes themselves are triggered by Aileen's loathing for prostitution -- by a lifetime's hatred for the way men have treated her since she was a child. She has only one male friend, a shattered Vietnam veteran and fellow drunk (Bruce Dern). Although she kills for the first time in self-defense, she is also lashing out against her past. Her experience of love with Selby brings revulsion uncoiling from her memories; men treat her in a cruel way and pay for their sins and those of all who went before them. The most heartbreaking scene is the death of a good man (Scott Wilson) who actually wants to help her, but has arrived so late in her life that the only way he can help is to be eliminated as a witness.

Look at these words and phrases: loathing, shattered Vietnam veteran, a lifetime's hatred, lashing out against her past, revulsion uncoiling from her memories.

In a word: alienation. Those are noir constructs, embedded in a crime bio.

As I see it, you were right the first time. Keep in mind that neo-noir is increasingly an actor's medium--meaning that their tonality and presence is significantly more foregrounded now than was the case in the classic era.