How you call your shocks should not be based alone on which variable they hit, but also how, exactly, they hit it. What matters here is the structure of the impact matrix, such as in your example 2. I assume it shows the long-run impact (although I cannot be sure). On a higher levels, how to interpret the shocks also depends on the angle of analysis.
If it shows the long-run impact, the model assumes no permanent impact of the second shock on GDP, whereas there is a permanent impact from the first shock. So, how do we interpret the shocks and call them? It comes from economic theory. What determines long-term GDP growth? Theory suggests it is exclusively determined by the supply side (the impact of the other shock 2 is zero), hence we could call it supply shock.
How to call the second shock is more tricky and open to interpretation. Calling it demand shock is a little loose, in my view. But as the label "supply shock" is already taken, and demand shocks are another key driver of economic dynamics, it makes sense (sort of) to give it the label "demand" shock.
Note that, if the analysis focuses on the drivers of GDP growth, the shocks could as easily be labelled "permanent" and "transitory".
Finally, imposing the structure of the impact matrices and labelling shocks in a suggestive way based on conventional theory makes it that much harder to advance the theory from data analysis. If your empirical model gives dubious results, it's much easier to conclude that there is a paradox, rather than that the theory might be wrong. Indeed, linking back to supply vs demand, there are analyses that suggest demand shocks may have a permanent impact on long-term growth, in which case the labelling in your examples might turn out to be misinformed.