Generally pretty good guidelines, but I have a few "nitpicks":

Firstly, I disagree on the To Do for Reviewers

Correctness: Does the code work as intended?

You check if there are tests that should ensure that, but even then, I don't think it is the reviewers responsibility to get into the business logic the tests are verifying, at least not very deep.

Secondly, things the Author should do

Remove debug statements and commented code.

Check for obvious bugs or typo

While yes, that should be done in general, I think this is easier to be picked up by Reviewers, as they have a fresh look on the code and have to go over everything anyway, its more efficient than the Author going over their own code for the third time, chances are if they missed something on the initial self review, they'll miss it again.