My bit of feedback is use careful, descriptive, and easily understood terminology. For example, noetic combat is kinda out there. I find myself stumbling on it rather than understanding what it's supposed to mean.
very good advice on both counts! indeed, i think using a noetic form of conflict resolution may be a first in an rpg... at least i have not yet found it in any of the other systems i've researched or gamed.
Also, rules light is super tough! People can try to manipulate open-ended systems to min max, if they are that kind of player. I wouldn't fully limit your design with this knowledge, but definitely keep it in mind.
a difficult balance indeed. how to develop a solid set of guidelines that encourage freedom and curb abuse? i'm not certain that any rule set is capable of that without the active and conscious cooperation of all participants in the game.
as i have mentioned, i'm not a rules-lite person myself. my experience has thus far always observed that rules-lite games devolve sooner or later into the same kind of fight that schoolyard kids have over whether they were shot or not. never once seen a rules-lite game actually work out for a full campaign... maybe an adventure at most - usually only a couple of encounters and then someone get's up in arms and offended by something and it breaks down.
i've long preferred more complex rule-sets which better define interactions yet allow for a lot of flexibility. hence my chagrin at actually developing a rules-lite game in the first place.
however, min-maxing is not necessarily a bad thing, humans do it in real life all the time. they call that success. it is only when min-maxing is combined with selfishness, or more specifically, a disregard for other's contributions, value, and fun, that it becomes a problem. again, just like in real life, actually. ^^
