Well, parenting matters are decided on a case-by-case basis, but what I've observed from the Court trends is that none of what you listed is likely to compel the Court to consider a reversal of residency to be in the best interests of the child.
First, communication.
Some parents will describe a 'breakdown in communication' as a refusal by one party to enter into any serious discussion about what school a child should attend. Others will describe it as the failure of one parent to provide a daily three-page e-mail updating them on every aspect of what activities the child did that day.
In the first instance, the Court will likely favour the complainant's stance; in the second, the Court will likely favour the respondent's stance.
The conclusion, though, is that communication between parents is relative - if someone is complaining about non-response to correspondence that is of little relevanc to the kid (for example, prising into the other's life under the guise of it being about the child), that's not going to constitute a breakdown in communication. Not informing the other parent about travel abroad, or relocation, or choice of school, that's a breakdown of communication.
That alone, though, won't necessarily result in a reversal of residency.
Second, phone calls.
The Court isn't going to change residency because one parent has the child call half an hour later than the orders state. Surely I don't need to explain why, but for clarity, it's folly to argue a child should have their life uprooted and moved to another household because one parent calls half an hour later than expected. Isn't the more sensible option to just, you know, move the time of the phone calls to an hour later? Or just put up with it? And why does the parent have to make a phone call that is meant for the child? That just doesn't make any sense.
Third, alienation.
I said in another post recently that I have an aversion to parties who put their own labels on behaviours and incidents in the Courtroom, instead of just describing the behaviour and letting the judge decide what that behaviour amounts to. As far as presumptive labels go, 'alienation' is right up there with 'abuse'.
But for humour's sake, let's talk about 'alienating behaviour'. Making phone calls 10 to 30 minutes late isn't alienation. Not making the phone call at all, that's potentially a problem, but treating the child as though they should be scared of the other parent or should hate the other parent when no circumstances actually exist to justify those feelings, that's potentially alienating behaviour.
The Court doesn't reverse residency where the reasons for doing so are trivial. The complaints made here are trivial.