As the others have said, we would not appreciate this forum being used to chase core devs to work harder.
However, the kind of analysis you did on those 50 PRs is very helpful, and I encourage you to continue helping us triage the backlog in this way. The best way to get attention from the relevant core dev is to mention them on the PR and ask them to take a look (this is most effective in cases where the relevant core dev was not already aware of the PR, or after you have added a substantial review of your own which can help them. Simply reminding us that there are open PRs is not that helpful - we are aware).
You could also comment on PRs with suggestions for the authors, including things such as to resolve merge conflicts, or anything else that you think can help make their PR more likely to progress. Or, when the PR is out of date, you could suggest on the PR that it be closed, and maybe the author will do that rather than a core dev.
You raise the point that the “awaiting review”/“awaiting core review” do not belong on draft PRs. This is a good point, but rather than us removing the label I think this should be raised as a workflow issue - could the bot add/remove the labels as PRs transition between draft and non-draft status? Would you be willing to create an issue on the core-workflow bug tracker at GitHub - python/core-workflow: Issue tracker for CPython's workflow?
I’m reviewing your list and taking some quick actions on a few PRs. Thanks again.