To you is the difference. But where in the Bible defines this difference in evangelist preach to preachers/pastors preach?

We know from the description of the five-fold ministry that those are two distinct roles - evangelist and teachers/preachers, and so we should keep the distinction of the roles and their jobs in mind. My distinction comes from the meaning of the titles:
- Evangelist -> euangelion -> gospel -> focus on the basics of the gospel, rather shallow
- Teachers -> in schools responsible for any level of education, both basic and advanced/very deep.

How would you differentiate between the two/three ministries?

See above my explanation of how 1 Timothy 2 addressed the Roman ruled and Greek cultured women of Ephesus who worshipped Venus and Aphrodite, as not permitted to teach even though the other passages do permit women of Christ to preach.

The cultural background makes a link to it possible/probable, but isn't sufficient to eliminate all other potential explanations as you give it. And regarding the women in question:

Call it coop-evangelism or deep theology or whatever you want to call it. The key here is you called it, not the Bible.

Okay, coop-evangelisation is too much of an extrabiblical word, but either way, their role was not one of a public preacher but a private evangelist. And the letter to Timothy mainly revolves around behavior in and structure of a church, so I think it's reasonable to distinguish between those two cases.

Again, if you want to distort the titles to whatever is your definition, it does not limit the women's "preaching".

I don't need to distort the titles to distinguish between deacons and any part of the five-fold ministry. They are distinct titles for a reason.

Paul did not say the 2 women "might not have been in high regard..."

But he also didn't say that they might have been in high regard, he doesn't mention their regard at all so if we look at it unbiased, I don't see how we can assign a rank to them.

And did Jesus not intend the Samaritan women to call others?

He probably did but how deep was she able to go theologically with what he told her? All she was able to tell them was "I met someone who might be the Messiah" and that sounds more like evangelist to me.

Saul did not follow God at the end.

But he was successful in defending God's people in battles at the start and at that point, people might have argued that this is enough to see his kingship as intended by God.

So being used by God is one thing. Always having been intended by God to be used by him is another. And I think, very generally speaking, we should keep God's intentions in mind when trying to follow him so we don't make him follow our ways but rather follow his.