So why do you think Qin Shi Huang - China's First Emperor is considered to be a tyrant?
first let me get this started by saying the Shiji (records of the grand historian) by Sima Qian shouldn't be a liable source as it was written a 100+ years after the death of the First Emperor, also it was a tool used by the Han dynasty to secure themselves the throne.
is their any historical evidence via archaeology or unbiased sources from the time that suggest he committed following actions:
It seems that he was way more villainized than what he actually was.
TL;DR: The Mandate of Heaven and propaganda in favor of the Han rendered Qin Shihuangdi a tyrant in later Chinese history, combined with the quick failure of the Qin dynasty.
Your question asks for an opinion, but there are several good and well accepted theories for why Qin Shihuangdi and the Qin empire was considered tyrannical. And yes, you are on to something regarding the Shiji's authenticity, although I think you're too harsh on discounting it. The Shiji is considered a pretty good primary source and Sima Qian is known as a father of history precisely because he practiced relatively decent historiography, including citing sources, though we have lost some of them. Further, the Han had been established for over a hundred years prior to the Shiji's completion, making it a rather poor tool to establish security over the throne.
Before even answering why Qin Shihuangdi is considered a tyrant, I think it's worth considering the context of Warring States and Qin era China. In late warring states, virtually all of the warring states had obtained a high degree of sovereignty over their territory, with absolute power resting in the ruler officially. There was still an aristocracy and challenges to power within a state to the throne, but these were usually from the ruler's family who were near the throne anyway (Qin Shihuangdi ascended Qin's throne during such a period of turmoil). From that period, the competing philosophies all agreed that the ideal state must have a ruler, and for one of the philosophies, legalism, that ruler was supposed to be the 'axis mundi.' In other words, they would set up a government and then observe it from afar and correct it when needed, but be totally outside and above of the system they created. The ruler's power was derived from an air of mystery and total control, with the Qin palace towering over any other buildings, acting like the Panopticon that Foucalt would later come to write about. Disclosing the ruler's location within the palace would lead to execution. Legalism's theory of social control was totalitarianism, very clearly expressed in the Han Feizi, written in late Warring States. But Qin was not especially harsh, just the state that went the furthest. Virtually every source at the time and almost all scholar's today agree that Qin's victory came from their willingness to adopt legalist principles totally, which were very harsh, but had the other states the opportunity, they might have tried to do the same.
Now, even with the ruler theoretically in total control, in practice this was not completely true. During Warring States, failure to listen to advisors could lead to defeat and existential destruction, so there were Kings who acquiesced to their advisors, even apologizing to them, as Qin Shihuangdi did on the eve of unification. As dynasties went on, emperors would begin to accumulate power and all powerful (with many many exceptions to this trend however).
I hope that this is ample evidence to at least suggest Qin Shihuangdi was not especially harsh. But being the victor of Warring States, he was bound to have many enemies, and after a breif rule, followed by a succession struggle, the Qin dynasty fell to a rebellion that revived the Warring States system, before Han Gaozu defeated Xiangyu and established the Han. The Han dynasty inherited much of Qin's legal systems for several decades after Qin's defeat, so either both Han and Qin were tyrannical, or neither were.
Now as to why he is remembered as tyrannical, one is the Mandate of Heaven. While it sounds beneficial to the victor, the Mandate of Heaven places the ruler in peril: they are not above the aristocracy or elites and their place can be taken should their rule go awry. Even worse, as mentioned above, the Han was more similar to Qin than different initially. Thus, many of the scholars of Early Han disparaged Qin and glorified their own dynasty, in order to lend their regime with legitimacy, despite Han possessing the same corvee penal labor system that led to the building of the 'Great Wall' (more of a connection between already existing walls in the northern states, none of which stands today. The Great Wall today is from the Ming dynasty). With Qin thoroughly unable to challenge this propaganda from their short reign and defeat, it was accepted that Qin Shihuangdi was a tyrant for several thousand years until our recent discoveries of the Shuihudi Bamboo slips and contemporary Warring States era sources. But to finish up, we may as well go through the stories you mention.
Sources: