Here's one that you overlooked: Deceptive Honesty
No, really.
People generally process language and information the best that they can, but there are many limitations and biases that constrain these attempts. One of the most obvious, and easiest to overcome, is cultural bias. Although it isn't the only type, I will use this bias as an example.
U.S. American and Japanese culture fall at opposite ends of the Individualism-Collectivism continuum. American societal culture is arguably the most individualistic in the world, while Japanese culture is strongly collectivist. All humans come into the world with individual preferences, desires, likes, aversions and unconsciously act on these. In Japan, a great deal of collective effort is put into teaching young children to control and limit their individualistic impulses and behavior, and to conditioning them to accommodate the norms, rules, and requirements of whatever group they are in (such as a classroom). In the U.S., the same occurs to some extent, but to a much lesser degree. In the U.S., individual preference and opinion is encouraged, and obsequiously sacrificing one's individuality, opinions, and preferences for the sake of the group is not held in high regard. U.S. Americans so value their individuality that the idea of it being stripped from them to accomodate a collective can seem almost nightmarish. (It has often been suggested that the Borg race from Star Trek was modeled after the Japanese. What makes the Borg so horrifying isn't the threat that they might kill you, but the even more horrifying possibility that they may strip you of your individuality in service to their collective.)
The consequence of these differences in values and childrearing methodologies is that to the average Japanese person, American individualistic behavior generally comes across-- not so much as annoying, obnoxious, or rude but as IMMATURE and CHILDISH. That is how it is most often percieved and categorized. Furthermore, what most U.S. Americans would consider to be "assertiveness" the average Japanese would define to be "aggressiveness." What the average American would consider to be "frank," the average Japanese would consider to be "rude." These are, of course, generalizations, but they are statistically quite accurate.
Therefore, in a conversation between Americans and Japanese people, particularly when language translation is involved, the term "individualism" is likely to be interpreted as "childishness," and "assertive individualist" is likely to be filtered by the Japanese people's minds into "aggressive childish person." This is just one example of many, many terms, concepts, and paradigms which cannot be ACCURATELY conveyed without, essentially, lying. The mental worlds, including deep values, of Japanese and U.S. Americans are so very different that intentional distortion-- outright lying-- is often necessary to more accurately and honestly convey ideas between these two cultures. Of course, these are white lies, which are meant to convey ideas MORE accurately and honestly.
This being the case, in many cross-cultural situations, one virtue of honesty that is missing from your list is Deceptive Honesty. Intentional misrepresentation of reality in order to compensate for communication distortion due to value differences, stereotypical expectations, and cultural biases.
As a completely separate concrete example of this phenomenon, imagine how difficult it might be to describe Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Barack Obama to an American plantation owner with 200 slaves in the early 1800s. You would have to intentionally mis-represent who and what these individuals are in order to accurately convey your thoughts and feelings about them. Referring to them as "intelligent, well-educated black men" would be a non-sequitur. It simply would not compute. Both of these individuals are stupid, ignorant, dirty, and intrinsically inferior by definition in the mind of the 19th century slave owner.
Fair enough, thanks for explaining! Probably some of what I'm worried about can be mitigated by careful naming & descriptions. (e.g. I suspect you weren't considering a literal "LLM slop" react, but if you were, I think something more gently and respectfully worded could be much less unpleasant to receive while conveying just as much useful information)
Status: musings. I wanted to write up a more fleshed-out and rigorous version of this, but realistically wasn't likely to every get around to it, so here's the half-baked version.
Related posts: Firming Up Honesty Around Its Edge-Cases, Deep honesty
What I mean by 'honesty'
There are nuances to this, but I think a good summary is 'Not intentionally communicating false information'.
This is the only one here that I follow near-absolutely and see as an important standard that people can reasonably be expected to follow in most situations. Everything else here I'd see as either supererogatory, or good-on-balance but with serious tradeoffs that one can reasonably choose to sometimes not make, or good in some circumstances but not appropriate in others, or good in moderation but not in excess.
Forthrightness
...or perhaps frankness?
I was originally inspired to write this up due to a conversation in which I wanted to emphasize the distinction between honesty and forthrightness: where honesty is about not giving false information, what I mean by forthrightness is a tendency not to hold back relevant true information.
Being forthright enables people to justly assume that if you haven't spoken out against something you're likely okay with it, that if you haven't expressed an interest in something you're likely not interested in it, and so on.
Personally, I follow a policy of near-absolute honesty, but am not particularly forthright; I think it's good not to hold back relevant true information without a good reason, but good reasons are not all that uncommon.
Circumspection
I'd describe circumspection as the virtue of holding back information when there is a good reason to do so; the counterpart to forthrightness..
Tact
I don't have as confident a concise description of what I think of tact as meaning, but my best attempt would be something like... recognizing that whatever you say isn't just a transfer of information, it's also a speech act, and avoiding speech acts that would cause problems.
It seems particularly easy for this to run counter to some of the other virtues here described, especially forthrightness and deep honesty, but it's certainly possible to have both at once.
'Accurate signalling'?
I don't have a good term for this one, but I think there's a concept related to honesty wherein one attempts to give accurate signals even when not explicitly communicating.
Perhaps, for example, there's reason not to, say, wear a suit, if there are widely understood assumptions about suit-wearers that are broadly true and reasonable (and that you're therefore not deliberately challenging) but that are not true of you - you'd be giving the wrong impression.
I don't know of anyone who takes this idea very seriously. I don't think I'd even endorse taking it very seriously. But I also don't know anyone who's mentioned giving it any thought at all, and I do think it bears some consideration.
Deep honesty
The main point of this post as originally conceived was to frame a description of this concept, which I didn't have a term for at the time. But before I got around to attempting to write this up, Aletheophile did a much more thorough job of describing a very similar idea, so I'll just refer you to that post.
(Although maybe I'm making a conceptual rounding error here and the version I had in mind was slightly but significantly different, in which case I might ought actually write it.)
'Proactive honesty'
Even when committed to not intentionally communicating false information, you can still be misunderstood. In some situations you can predict in advance that misunderstanding is likely, and I would say that it would be dishonest to take advantage of that and deliberately be misunderstood, but it's not dishonest to just shrug and decide it's not worth clearing up the misunderstanding.
One might then consider the virtue that I'd dub proactive honesty, for lack of a better term: not just not deliberately giving false information, but deliberately not giving false information; going out of one's way to not be misunderstood.
Meta-honesty
Again, I refer you to a previous post that describes this more thoroughly than I could.