The problem with this type of question is that there can be no way that it is not about resources. In the question itself, you have explicitly asked for references.
One of the issues is that I don't think there have been any studies into what you would call errors committed by native speakers, as generally, the language is defined by their (collective) usage. Speakers don't speak in a way that they believe is ungrammatical unless they are using it to make a point (or perhaps to play the role of someone who would speak in that fashion).
Generally, references that aren't targeted at language learners take native speaker usage to be grammatical, and so are extremely unlikely to describe them as errors - more often, they're called "features" of a dialect or variant of a language.
Finally, the criteria that you have provided are too vague and broad - by whose criteria would things not be "ordinary faults"? You're wasting everyone's time by defining what you want negatively. If I order a coffee, I say I want a cappuccino, not that I don't want a cup without milk, without froth, without cocoa powder, and without sugar.
If this question were to somehow be reopened, I would expect it to be a request for information, not resources (that is, a question with a substantial answer, not a list) and for it to be positively-defined, so we know what to look for.
Note: the existence of negatively-defined criteria in open questions is not a good enough argument to have it here. Where in other questions the scope is more limited, what you're asking for is a google search that excludes some arbitrary criteria you have established. Which is too broad.