I spent some time trying to remember whether I had met someone who would meet all these criteria. I'm not sure I have found anyone, though I can think of a few people who could probably be of this kind. So one point to consider would be whether the "church" abides by these principles, as a body, as opposed to whether the person preaching to you does the same.
Some time ago I met a person I now consider a manipulator. The organization this person works for attracts youth with sports and trades, and then "provides training for life" on issues that have nothing at all to do with sports and trades. The organization is supposed to be religious, but religion does not go beyond a token prayer sometimes; religion serves the purpose of giving credibility. The "principles" they are being taught are not religious at all. Perhaps they are even correct, but they are not religious.
This group would not be thought to be evangelizing anyone, but it is my impression that they would not meet several of the criteria above. Perhaps this is not just for religions, but for groups that "preach" an idea to others.
I could mention the example of Salesian priests and their shops. They attract (or used to) attract a high number of youth and children, who can learn trades with them. In my experience at that particular place - which may be different from anybody else's anywhere- cases of abuse were rare, though abuse did happen. On occasion, anyone studying there had to listen to a chat on something religious, but it was infrequent and no one was pushed to join anything. There were specific groups you could join if you were religious, but you could perfectly well study at several of their shops without joining any of the religious groups.
Maybe it was a matter of the people directly involved with that center at that time. But, overall, my impression is that they would meet these criteria. The other group wouldn't. I wonder if there should be a criterion about enticing -not coercing- people to participate.
