Your definitions of belief, faith and knowledge are inapplicable to the experience of many people.
What if I make a decision based on pure 'faith', then evidence or personal experience arises later which confirms my 'belief'? Is it still faith? Not by your definition. Then it becomes knowledge.
For example- what if I am addicted to certain substances, activities and practices. (Which I was.) Then I have a salvation experience where I put my faith in Jesus Christ. (Which I did.) Then, I instantly have no more of these addictions, and remain addiction free for fifteen years. (Which I have.)
Now I have knowledge. Or is it still faith?
"For example- what if I am addicted to certain substances, activities and practices. (Which I was.) Then I have a salvation experience where I put my faith in Jesus Christ. (Which I did.) Then, I instantly have no more of these addictions, and remain addiction free for fifteen years. (Which I have.)"
What you have is an inadequate sample size. You also failed to account for the fact that other people have put faith in Judaism, Hinduism, Satanism, and Scientology and have also remained addiction free.
So, it's still faith. You just think it turned into belief. That's because you failed to account or test for or disprove other possible causes. After all, correlation (spiritual experience and sobriety) is not causation.