First off: There's nothing saying the example evocation spells are rotes, unless that's explicit in the spell's description.
What's the official ruling on what constitutes a rote?
Whatever your GM is comfortable with allowing as a rote.Sorry to disappoint, there. But we expect everyone to make decisions for their games based on what they want to see in their games.
At minimum, based on chats I had with Lenny during the development cycle, the choice of whether a block rote manifests as armor or as a block is not considered a change of parameters. At the time I didn't expect that, honestly.
But as I thought about it, it started to make sense to me. Harry clearly has some favored, go-to spells that he does regularly, but which manifest with some variations to it. His shield spell -- almost certainly a rote -- is the poster-child for that.
So for me, at my table, in my game, I'd say that defensive rotes that maintain the same amount of power can play around with whether it's armor or block, whether it's set up to last a few extra exchanges or is just a one-timer. In this, Deadmanwalking and I have some pretty similar perspectives on what the guidelines would be for what is or is not a change of parameters.
As far as the whole maneuver-aspect thing, man, maneuvers are such a lightweight action I'd definitely want to preserve a little flexibility there. I'd assert that the aspect inflicted needs to remain in the same thematic spirit, but I'd allow some change of specifics. Let's say my maneuver-rote is "Tip the Balance" in its theme -- the point is to knock people off-balance, flat on their asses, whatever. I can't then use that rote to inflict the aspect "Morose and Contemplating the Essential Futility of Life", but I sure as hell can and should be allowed to inflict "Off Balance", "On The Ground", "Two Left Feet", etc -- all playing with the theme that I'm using a little kinetic force to mess up the target's ability to take graceful action.