I am not sure what the purpose of this list is. If you want to come up with a specific approach or "framework" for all these types (or even more), then I believe you have a big problem, since this would show that you have not yet understood how to think about business issues. I know that this is how,. e.g., Cosentino is approaching cases in his book "Case in Point", but frankly, this book is a prime example of how a strategy consultant would and should NEVER work!
Essentially, instead of trying to map frameworks to case types, you have to understand the internal principles that underlies strategic issues (there are very few of them!), and then apply them to the situation at hand.
For example, it doesn't make any sense to have different "frameworks" for M&A cases, Market Entry Cases, Product Launch Cases, Capacity Expansion cases, etc.. All these situations share the same core issue and the LOGIC according to which they need to be solved is 100% identical! Without understanding this, a candidate will never ever be able to rigorously approach cases and always remain a "framework monkey" who has to rely on luck and gets confused as soon as some unforeseen notions appear in the case which don't fit the framework.
This is the big tragedy with the available case literature (which I have seen) - it teaches a fundamentally flawed way of thinking (or lack thereof).
P.S.: Unfortunately there are many other examples of how the pertinent books/courses teach things that are straightout nonsense. A very prominent one is the widespread habit to start analyses with qualitative questions - often around "understanding the market". That, again, is a prime example of how to NOT work as a strategy consultant. It is the definition of boiling the ocean! Rigorous analyis has to start with NUMERICALLY narrowing down the area of scrutiny by menas of a LOGIC TREE, before asking any qualitative questions. The list goes on and on...