If anyone else plays these games

What is this incredibly niche subgenre called?

in the past I've used "action JRPG," but that just doesn't hit the nail quite on the head because a lot of games fall into that category (nier, dark souls, kingdom hearts, etc.) that just don't fall within this niche and sure as hell don't scratch the itch.

Modern Tales games past Graces f don't even fit in this genre any more because of how much they deviated from the formula.

"Action JRPGs That OP Likes As Opposed To The Ones He Doesn't"
I mean, I don't know what to tell you, I guess if anything these are more like "true" action JRPGs since they're more JRPG-like while the other examples you gave are basically just action games with numbers that you don't really need to worry about very much.
Every time we try to get too specific with genre classification we end up with autism like "Metroidvania" and "Spectacle Fighter" that just ends up driving communities even further apart.

Item management, party management, an expansive and open overworld with dungeons that contain puzzles, an emphasis on out-of-combat character progression

these are the elements I look for in my JRPGs in addition to being action-oriented.

I'd still just call them all action JRPGs, or real-time combat JRPGs, but you're right in that it's rather broad, given how there's variables as to how combat elements are weighted (compare the emphasis on using artes very frequently in Tales, with games where the timing/resources used force the player to use them sparingly compared to normal attacks, like .hack//G.U.; I seem to also recall SCS being of the latter sort), whether or not you can map abilities to increase fluidity (.hack//IMOQ for instance allows "real-time" for standard attacks, movement, and blocking, but every other element, including usage of skills, are handled via a paused menu, which means you're going to be breaking the flow of combat a LOT), or if the emphasis to progression is more on what plot there is or if the combat itself is the driving factor. In similar fashion, simply calling all turn-based JRPGs "turn-based" is rather broad as well, as while there's the standard sort (with perhaps the variation of choosing actions as the come instead of the whole party at once, or timing of when turns become active ala ATB), you've also got ones that give the player themselves more input on success or failure, whether the emphasis is on offensive input (Shadow Hearts), defensive input (Tsugunai), or both (Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi). With the latter, I've kind of taken to calling them "modified turn-based" as they build off/deviate from the standard format.

That said, it strikes me that doing a similar "branding" for real-time ones would have some issues. Namely, what specific form of real-time JRPG combat is the "base" form (do you go with the oldest "classic" sort of style, the most popular, the most simplistic, etc), and would the ones being called "modified" be considered to actually be improving on the formula or not (compare how certain real-time JRPGs get considered button mashers while other ones aren't, for instance)? Looking back at the types of turn-based JRPGs, there's a clear "base" people have in mind as a stereotype for combat (usually classic Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy style turn-based), and the ones that would fall under "modified turn-based" usually wind up having people voicing a liking for how the combat handles compared to what they'd consider the norm. And then you could even go one further with it for "single-player MMO" style combat, with action bars/cooldowns, whether the intent is to actually simulate an MMO (.hack, .hack//G.U., etc) or not (Xenoblade, etc).

Polite sage for autism that may or may not actually be warranted.

This is a good autism, and perfectly on-topic.
The sticking point for the action JRPG or whatever subgenre the games in OP's post fit in is that a single game hasn't become the baseline for the genre in the way Final Fantasy did for the turn-based JRPG, Fire Emblem for the SRPG, or Overwatch for the hero shooter, so until a game comes along that does that sort of thing, it's going to stay an obscure subgenre.

Thanks, I think.

I wouldn't necessarily say "obscure". More that it hasn't developed a stereotype of its own, and is a mishmash of various elements where, aside from the base idea that normal combat (standard strikes, movement, blocking) happens in real-time, haven't been fully adopted to a truly high degree and thus become part of the base themselves. Additionally, there's people that would draw a hard distinction between JRPGs and Action-RPGs, even if the latter are ones coming out from Japan (see various people that refuse to think of Dark Souls or Dragon's Dogma as JRPGs).

The way I see parameters with turn-based JRPGs tends to be a rather simple "Does the game give the player more direct input over combat or not?" If yes, "modified turn-based", and if not, "traditional turn-based". With real-time though, there's a lot of other facets to consider (in addition to ones that can fit ANY JRPG; encounter types, exploration types, genre mixes, etc), and again, there's no go-to stereotype as of now.
That sort of stuff, where in a turn-based JRPG it doesn't really factor in (mainly the menu oriented things since you're already going to be in a menu), or may not be as much an annoyance (having direct control of allies in turn-based games vs dealing with AI partners as compared with human input).

By the sound of it you'd rather something like a "Sadpanda" of games, or at least JRPGs, where you could dump specific tags into/select parameters from sets of drop down lists and get exact results. Though of course, the more specific you are, the less things that fit the bill you'd find.

Never played. General art direction puts me off too much. And for JRPG art is very important.
Played one on PS1 after I watched its anime adaptation. It was turbo boring and I dropped it after like 2 hours.
Lol
Played 1 and 2 on gba. 1st one got too grindy at some point so I dropped it.
2nd one become grindy as well, but cute devil loli made me suffer through it.
It wasn't really worth it.

So yeah I call them not very good games, that aren't really worth my time.

"Anime action RPGs".

Just because the game has RPG elements and it's from Japan, doesn't make it a JRPG

Shounen RPG's