"IT projects gone awry..." Qualifying a reduced relative clause rule

"IT projects gone awry because they were conceived on too massive a scale, and good money thrown after bad, are financial nuisances far from unique to the Beeb." ['Beeb' = BBC]

I've been trying to unpick this sentence and it seems to present some interesting questions regarding reduced relative clauses. I believe that I am right in thinking that it contains two reduced relative clauses, 'gone awry...' and 'thrown after...', which are reductions of 'which have gone awry' and 'which has been thrown after'.

Despite a fair amount of research, I haven't been able to find a comprehensive account of the rules governing the use of reduced relative clauses, with many books simply suggesting that one should use the present participle for active clauses, and the past participle for clauses that have a passive meaning.

Whilst 'thrown after' follows this rule, I am not sure how to classify 'gone awry'. The past participle is used and yet technically-speaking this is not a passive clause. Indeed, it is not possible to use the verb 'go' in a passive sense because it is intransitive. So my questions are: firstly, can we say that where the verb is intransitive a past participle can substitute for an (active) perfect tense? Secondly, can anyone think of other examples of this? And thirdly, where can I find a comprehensive account of the rules governing relative clause reductions as everything I have seen so far has been massively unsatisfactory?

...And if you are not fed up with my silly questions: is 'financial nuisances far from unique to the Beeb' also a reduced relative clause?

Apologies if any of these questions seem naive...

My guess would be that it is a slight inaccuracy to say that this type of clause reduction can only be done with passives—rather, it can only be done with verbal forms that use be as their auxiliary. Basically the reduction is about removing the subject and verb in a copular clause, leaving the subject complement behind, whether that be a pure adjective or a participle, past or present.

Such forms will nearly always be passives, but there are a couple of cases where an active uses be instead of have in the perfect—or rather, there used to be such cases. Go is one of these verbs: it used to be he is gone to the store, rather than he has gone to the store, for instance. It seems that when this conjugational pattern of go changed, it didn't affect its ability to form reduced clauses, even though it no longer really fits the criterion.

Another example that arguably still fits the criterion is do, in the specific pseudo-passive (but semantically more active) be-perfect be done meaning ‘have finished’:

The boy still writing his exam paper looked stressed; the boy done with his looked calm.

This is somewhat awkward and clunky as a reduced clause, but to me at least perfectly grammatical.

You cannot, however, extend this to constructions that only permit (or used to permit) have perfects, transitive or intransitive. Thus, the following is quite ungrammatical:

*The boy slept soundly woke up.
*The boy been soundly asleep woke up.

As for your last question: yes, that too is a reduced clause. Here, the subject complement retained just happens to be a pure adjective (modified by an adverbial intensifier far from).