Oh, I see where the disconnect comes from.

I see them all as adding ~0 depth, simply because all of the examples you give merely ask for a certain amount of digital dexterity (as in, your fingers) while going through a pre-solved rotation that is optimized for you. All actual modifications to this happen only as a result of either a) the fight forcing more than a workaround, some deeper break like delaying a whole burst window and this messing with certain jobs that rely on gauges or cycles or b) messing up, drifting, and then depending on the job being more or less able to rectify this.
Which are both, importantly, external to the actual job design. They're not part of the job itself, they only interact with the portion of the kit "vulnerable to" drifting or delaying.

Now don't get me wrong, static rotation type classes can be really well-designed. They just always tend to be shallow in their gameplay, as nowadays we can simply look up the optimal rotation and then it's all just about honing said dexterity to never fumble your buttons. At which point the entire gameplay is a physical exercise, with its difficulty scaled on how often you have to press buttons (so lots of oGCD weaving = more difficult).

A form of difficulty for sure, but sadly not at all the type I personally enjoy. :'(