Sure. I wanted to give some pretty clear examples of experiential perfects. I've got other examples too, but they are less straightforward and may need more analysis.
Yes, with experiencer subjects, it's not a big deal to have experiential perfects. Without anterior semantics, I wonder how they would be handled. Quasi-resultatives? At any rate, Haug 2004 is helpful in pointing out that quasi-resultatives and extended now perfects (which is one theory of the anterior) have the same truth values, so they can be a bridging construction in the further grammaticalization of the perfect along the cline.
In the following example we have a verb of perception paired with a speech act verb, both experiential perfects in my mind to convey a sense of being a witness:
John 1:34 wrote:ἑώρακα καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ἑκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.
"I have seen and I have testified that he is the chosen one of God."
Even unpaired with a verb of perception, μαρτυρεῖν can have an experiential reading in the perfect:
John 5:37 wrote:καὶ ὁ πέμψας με πατὴρ ἐκεῖνος μεμαρτύρηκεν περὶ ἐμοῦ. οὔτε φωνὴν αὐτοῦ πώποτε ἀκηκόατε οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε.
“And the father who sent me, he has testified about me. You have never yet heard his voice or seen his form.”
Yes, negatives are special. Experiential readings would make the denial stronger:
John 8:33 wrote:ἀπεκρίθησαν πρὸς αὐτόν · σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ ἐσμεν καὶ οὐδενὶ δεδουλεύκαμεν πώποτε · πῶς σὺ λέγεις ὅτι ἐλεύθεροι γενήσεσθε;
They replied to him, “We are Abraham’s seed and we have never been enslaved to anyone. How can you say that ‘you will become free’?”
Here's an example that could also be experiential, but I'm not sure the information structure supports it:
John 12:29 wrote:ὁ οὖν ὄχλος ὁ ἐστὼς καὶ ἀκούσας ἔλεγεν βροντὴν γενονέναι, ἄλλοι ἔλεγεν · ἄγγελος αὐτῷ λελάληκεν.
So the crowd that stood and hear were saying that it had been thunder. Others were saying, “An angel has spoken to him.”
It is interesting that there are so many of these in the Johannine writings, whose language is more Koine than Classical. How about Paul, then?
There are some perfects where it's harder to distinguish between experiential and (other) anterior readings.
2 Cor 11:25 wrote: 23 διάκονοι Χριστοῦ εἰσιν; . . . ὑπὲρ ἐγώ . . . . 24 Ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων πεντάκις τεσσεράκοντα παρὰ μίαν ἔλαβον, 25 τρὶς ἐρραβδίσθην, ἅπαξ ἐλιθάσθην, τρὶς ἐναυάγησα, νυχθήμεριον ἐν τῷ βυθῷ πεποίηκα ·
23 Are they servants of Christ? . . . I am more. . . . 24 By the Jews I received the thirty-nine lashes five times, 25 three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I shipwrecked, I have spent a night and a day in the ocean depth.
Some grammarians (BDF, Wallace) consider this an "aoristic perfect" because of the aorists in the context. But I think these aorists are not narrative but constative, and this perfect is experiential. Constative aorists and experiential perfects have pretty much the same extensional meaning but their intensional meanings differ (Bache's category IV). My view is that the notion of what some linguists refer to "subjectification" may explain the nuance.
More difficult is the following:
2 Cor 2:13 wrote:12 Ἐλθὼν δὲ εἰς τὴν Τρῳάδα εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θύρας μοι ἀνεῳγμένης ἐν κυρίῳ, 13 οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί μου τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν με Τίτον τὸν ἀδελφόν μου, ἀλλὰ ἀποταξάμενος αὐτοῖς ἐξῆλθον εἰς Μακεδονίαν.
12 Now after I came to Troas for the gospel of Christ, since a door had been opened for me in the Lord, 13 I had no rest in my spirit to not find Titus my brother, but I bid them farewell and I went out to Macedonia.
This really looks like a narrative context (cf. the aorist ἐξῆλθον), where the perfect is normally inappropriate so this is usually analyzed as an aoristic perfect. Yet maybe the perfect is experiential and Paul slid out of the narration to convey some strong emotion? The negative does not make things easier.
There are also some perfects with objects, which I tend to interpret as anterior (more likely current relevance instead of experiential due to information structure) because I'm skeptical about the perfect selecting the object instead of the subject. At any rate, they are pretty rare.
Mark 10:52 wrote:καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ · ὕπαγε, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε.
And Jesus told him, “Go, it is your faith that has healed you.”
Acts 5:28 wrote:λέγων · [οὐ] παραγγελίᾳ παρηγγείλαμεν ὑμῖν μὴ διδάσκειν ἐπὶ τῶν ὀνόματι τούτῳ, καὶ ἰδοὺ πεπληρώκατε τὴν Ἰερουσαλὴμ τῆς διδαχῆς ὑμῶν καὶ βούλεσθε ἐπαγαγεῖν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς τὸ αἶμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τούτου.
saying, “Didn’t we give you strict orders not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you want to bring upon us this person’s blood.”
John 10:29 wrote:ὁ πατήρ μου ὃ δέδωκέν μοι πάντων μεῖζόν ἐστιν, καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται ἀρπάζειν ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ πατρός.
“My father, what he has given me is greater than everything, and no one can snatch it from the father’s hand.”
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)