Need better examples for assuming self to be non-form aggregates

All self-conceiving is mental formation - SN 22.81

Assumes five aggregates to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth (jati), what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.

SN 22.81

This includes conceiving self from the other aggregates - SN 22.79

And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications.

SN 22.79

SN 22.1 is the most clear sutta about this matter.

Ven. Sariputta said: "Now, how is one afflicted in body & afflicted in mind?

"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He is seized with the idea that 'I am feeling' or 'Feeling is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his feeling changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

"He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He is seized with the idea that 'I am perception' or 'Perception is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his perception changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He is seized with the idea that 'I am fabrications' or 'Fabrications are mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his fabrications change & alter, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over their change & alteration.

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. He is seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

"This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body and afflicted in mind.

"And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.

"He does not assume feeling to be the self...

"He does not assume perception to be the self...

"He does not assume fabrications to be the self...

"He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.

"This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind.

I need much better examples for the other four aggregates

I guess a non-canonical example for "perception" might be, imagine you're living somewhere: a city or a village, a house. And you're there, you live there, for a long time. And you see it frequently. And sometimes when you see it (see a bit of it, a familiar sight) you may think, "this is me!"

Later you're living somewhere else, and you remember where you used to be, you remember seeing what you used to see (what was a familiar sight), and you think "that was me", and maybe you're sad because you no longer perceive that.

An example of "feeling" might be "love", perhaps: "I love this person", "I'm the husband of this person", "I'm the son of this person". Or perhaps negative feelings, "My parents didn't like me, I feel rejected and unloved, and that is me, that is who I am".

You might need to expand your definition too: to not only "being" but "having" -- from your quote, SN 22.93:

assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form

For example, perhaps you're happy with the perception of music or something, but the music stops. You might not think "I was the perception and the feeling" but might think "I had the perception of music". I suspect people view "possession" instead of "being" if or when they view the self as somehow separate from, or less impermanent than, the object or the aggregate in question -- so you might say "I have a bicycle (because I remember a time when 'I' existed and I didn't have a bicycle), rather than I am a bicycle; or, I am a possessor of a bicycle."

I think the distinction between 'being' and 'having' is specially slippery when it comes to "consciousness" -- is it that you are a consciousness, or is it that you have a consciousness? Does consciousness have whatever it's conscious of, or is it that it is whatever it's conscious of?

Anyway the definition of 'right understanding' covers/includes both being and having (SN 22.59):

You should truly see any kind of consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

Yaṃ kiñci viññāṇaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre santike vā, sabbaṃ viññāṇaṃ: ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṃ.

Maybe I cannot easily isolate a case of assuming the self to be only one aggregate, and not the other?

I read recently (though I don't remember where) that the boundaries between the aggregates are indistinct or fuzzy -- it wasn't a statement about "self" but about the aggregates themselves, but if that's so then that corroborates what you said (i.e. "cannot easily isolate ... only one aggregate").