SuttaCentral
I haven’t been able to find one 
PS: I edited the quote above to convey what I think you are asking by replacing ‘real’ with ‘true’ as I think I may have a different definition of ‘real’ compared to you. By ‘true’ here I mean synonymous with substantial existence. 
But you find me and you know i cannot change and substantially exist
The test for whether you substantially exist is whether after subjecting you to reductive analysis I can find anything and I cannot. You’re in good company though as Shakyamuni said even he wasn’t to be so regarded.
Quote the sutta. You are not likely able to find that the 5 aggregates are not existent in the same way that self is not existent.
SN 22.86 and the phena sutta which says quite clearly the five aggregates are not regarded as substantially existent by the Teacher. The six sense bases are similarly so described by the Teacher.
Further, it isn’t a matter of sutta whether they are substantially existent or not; you can do the reductive analysis yourself. If you find something, then you can be sure it exists in a way that even Shakyamuni himself said he did not.
Also, since this thread is devoted to it I’d note that the non-substantial existence of things is congruent with and not falsified and in no tension with modern scientific understanding where even the “here and now” is itself not substantially existent and where things are observer dependent! Modern reductive analysis (aka special relativity) shows that time itself does not substantially exist; it is completely relative and dependent.
I’ve discussed this before. A self is by definition existent in a permanent, independent way. The aggregates are said to exist in an impermanent, dependent way. So they are not on the same plane by nature of their definition, and this is why the suttas do not confirm the existence of a self while they do confirm the existence of insubstantial, dependent, impermanent experiences.
Define this. The sutta didn’t mention this at all.
In the same way, a mendicant sees and contemplates any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; near or far—examining it carefully. And it appears to them as completely void, hollow, and insubstantial. For what substance could there be in form?
SN 22.95
Rather than rely upon sutta you should conduct the analysis yourself. Again, if you can find something that is not “completely void, hollow, and insubstantial” when seeing and contemplating the aggregates, then you’ll have found something that is substantially existent.
Ok, now find the same thing, but refer to the self.
When the parts are assembled
we use the word ‘chariot’.
So too, when the aggregates are present
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.
SN 5.10
One candidate
The example was already given and was given by the Teacher and the subject of analysis was the Tathagata. SN 22.86 gives the details. The Tathagata exists, but when subject to reductive analysis is found to be completely void, hollow and insubstantial just like the aggregates.
I don’t see this applied to a self in the suttas you quoted.
It’s as @Vaddha said, there’s difference in the definition there. Latest Scientific Knowledge & Sarvastivadins - #47 by Vaddha
I would say so, yes. Because they ‘locate’ consciousness via the brain, but the brain must itself be located via consciousness. So to reduce one to the other fails the test when analysing for dependency, it seems.
You don’t see it because you assume there is some difference in meaning between “completely void, hollow and insubstantial” and the statement made by the Teacher, “But, Anuradha, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare…”; but these words are pointing to the same referent. A thing that when subject to reductive and penetrative analysis falls apart revealing an illusory, ephemeral, gossamer, thoroughly dependent, completely void, hollow, insubstantial, nebulous existence. The inability to find it under reductive analysis reveals that things lack of substantive existence. Dependent upon truly seeing a thing’s lack of substantial existence, dispassion for that thing naturally arises.
what do you think of @Vaddha’s post here then? Latest Scientific Knowledge & Sarvastivadins - #47 by Vaddha
I found my prior comment where I gave some thoughts on this in more detail:
I think it’s all good, but it doesn’t necessarily represent my current views, because I haven’t re-read it all.
I agree with it! If you define “self” to be that essence or core which is found when you subject a person to reductive analysis. When you do so, no such essence or core can be found. Persons do not substantially exist; they are completely void, hollow, and insubstantial. In just the same way the essence or core of the aggregates cannot be found when subjecting them to reductive analysis. They are completely void, hollow, and insubstantial. The same is true for the six sense bases. The brain and the “here and now” are the same. Could even say it’s a pattern 
I think the difference—in so far as it is relevant to the discussion of science and rebirth— is that people who deny rebirth would deny it exists even in a conventional or dependent sense, whereas a Buddhist would presumably believe that rebirth exists in at least conventional sense. In the same way that we might say that invisible pink unicorns that float just outside of our eye sight do not exist even conventionally, but the concept of them can exist conventionally.
Now the difference between rebirth and the floating pink unicorns is that Buddhism claims that its conventional existence is in principle knowable, whereas such unicorns would not be knowable even in principle, and so to posit their conventional existence is defunct.
Mainly, I just want to point out that the 4-fold formula of exist, not exist after the death of Arahant, is referring to the self, not to the 5 aggregates. Because the 5 aggregates are included in dependent origination and when dependent cessation has done its job, there are no more renewed 5 aggregates after the death of Arahant. Only a corpse is left.
I think I got on this because someone who identified the self and aggregates are the same in insubtantial or something, used the 4-fold exist-not exist formula on the 5 aggregates to deny that there’s nothing after parinibbāna.
At the core (pun intended) of those denials I think you’ll find the belief - deeply ingrained and unconscious - in the core of a person. That is they believe the person exists in some substantial way from moment to moment that ends at substantially at death. They believe in the substantial existence of the brain. This is why I always recommend focusing on how “rebirth” happens from moment to moment.