What are the 5 exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree exclusionary rule?

Imagine if police departments had genuine, real psychics who could reach into the universe and pull out answers to questions like, "Did Bob commit a crime?" or "Where is the gun?" In the real world, it isn't that easy. Police need to gather evidence and perform investigations. These actions create a "chain of causation," like a line of dominos. For example, if Cop is walking down the street and finds a wadded up piece of paper that says "I hid the drugs behind the McDonald's on 4th Street," then when Cop goes to that McDonald's they find another note that says, "We moved the drugs to Bob Smith's house at 123 Sesame Street," this series of clues progressively helps Cop investigate a potential crime. Moreover, it now identifies a specific person as a potential suspect in a crime all because Cop found a random piece of paper. But what if instead of finding a wadded up piece of paper on the street, Cop actually found the piece of paper inside someone's home after Cop illegally entered? Cop would still learn about the McDonald's, and then about Bob, but the problem is that these two links in the chain are tainted by Cop's illegal search of the house. In other words, even though it wouldn't have been wrong for Cop to randomly check behind the McDonald's and find the information about Bob, because they did so based on an originally illegal search, their actions are no longer appropriate.

Though this taint generally prevents the evidence from being admissible in court, there are some ways to dissipate the taint, which means even though Cop did something bad, the evidence will still be admissible. There are a few ways to accomplish this:

(1) If an independent source provides the information, then the information is no longer tainted. For example, if Sam calls 911 and says, "I just saw a known drug dealer hide something behind McDonald's on 4th street." Now, even though Cop knew about it for bad, tainted reasons, other police officers are aware of it for perfectly fine reasons (a citizen who is completely independent from Cop's original, illegal search).
(2) If finding the evidence would have been inevitable, then the evidence is no longer tainted. For example, if McDonald's is used to having drug dealers hide stuff behind their building so they have an arrangement with police to stop by and check behind their building every week, then even though Cop's discovery was tainted by their illegal search, the note behind McDonald's would have been inevitably discovered by another police officer during one of the weekly, scheduled checks.
(3) An intervening act (also known as "attenuation") happens when a defendant, based on their free will, reintroduces the evidence. This is common in confession situations. For example, if police illegally arrest Bob and obtain a confession from him, the confession will not be admissible. However, if a day later, Bob comes back to the police station and voluntarily confesses, this is an intervening act that makes their confession admissible even though it would not have happened without the prior run-in with police based on an illegal search. (4) Though it's not nice to violate someone's Miranda rights (the rights you usually heard read in TV shows when someone is arrested), such violations don't generally cause taint.
(5) Where police are required to knock and announce when executing a search warrant, but they fail to do so, evidence discovered from such a search are not tainted.