These things are consistent with a total railroad!
Consider the following "event-based" scenario:
*The PCs come upon an assault in progress - NPC A is having at NPC B. The players know nothing about the identity of A or B.
*The players are aware a choice can be made - to have their PCs help A, help B or pass on by.
*The players decide to have their PCs help A.
*It turns out - unknown to the players, but established as part of the GM's backstory - that A is the tyrant's heir, and B is the revolutionary. By helping A, the PCs help consolidate the tyranny.
*The above-mentioned consequence is represented accurately in the game - the GM narrates rebels being rounded up, the heir appearing on the caste parapet with the tyrant, etc.
*The players are reminded of their choice: the tyrant awards the PCs with honours, the rebels then start seeking revenge on them, etc.
*The above is all permanent in the sense that the consolidation of the tyranny against the rebellion is "locked in" as part of the fiction - there are no easy takebacks or do-overs available.
As per my bolding, this satisfies all your elements. But everything about the fiction has been decided by the GM. All the players did was push a button on a black box: that is, they chose, based on whatever prompt took their fancy or perhaps on a whim or a coin toss, to have their PCs help A against B.
This is low-player-agency RPGing, pretty close to zero-agency in my description of it. Yet it ticks all your boxes. Hence your boxes do not tell us about player agency.
Player agency is not
we get to push buttons on the GM's black box that prompt the GM to say new things about the fiction. Player agency is
we as players get to shape the shared fiction in accordance with our own vision and aspirations for it.
As
@chaochou has said, this requires knowledge of the rules whereby such shaping takes place.
In high-player-agency RPGing, the players hook the GM, not vice versa.