I'm not saying that Spelunky is a roguelike. What made you come to that conclusion? I'm saying that Shiren, PMD, and Chunsoft's other games are roguelikes, unlike Spelunky and those games.
Shiren plays just like Rogue. I don't see how just because there are warehouses, it ceases to be a roguelike.
To me, the turn-based and grid-based nature are the core of the genre, not permadeath and random levels. Sure, these elements work extremely well in a roguelike, but they aren't a requirement.
If you added cross-playthrough warehouses to Angband, it wouldn't be a roguelike by your definition. How does such a small mechanic change a game's genre? You're doing the same things, moving around on a grid, fighting enemies, picking up items, and so on, but you say it's a different genre because of one secondary mechanic.
Why not draw the line somewhere else? For example, why not claim a game needs potions, scrolls, and wands to be a roguelike? Or that it needs an identification system to be a roguelike? Or that it needs a hunger clock? These are all mechanics that work well in roguelikes and that most roguelikes have, but would the lack of one of these mechanics disqualify a game for you?
What features do you consider required for a roguelike? The "high value factors" of the Berlin Interpretation? In that case, DCSS wouldn't be a roguelike. DCSS has a separate menu for shops, so it wouldn't be non-modal. The Berlin Interpretation is just an old list of roguelike tropes, not a definition.
A game can't be "more of a roguelike". What's more of a roguelike, Brogue or IVAN? A game is a roguelike or it isn't, with very few games coming close to treading the line.