I've gone through the rules and playbooks a few times now, and started making some notes. I'll post my thoughts about the Rules document first, and then the playbooks probably on Thursday.
Basic mechanics
It's been said elsewhere on this forum, but +1/-1 forward isn't particularly exciting. It is, however, very easy to remember and calculate, and keep the bonus from becoming overpowering.
Helping is very powerful in this formulation, and I like that it emerges directly from the narrative. It would be really interesting if someone invited to help could "betray" as well, though.
Harm & Fates, as said many times, are incredibly cool. For the final game, more detailed rules for how healing can help -- given that medicine is pretty much "clean it and pray" -- would be nice, but are probably not essential.
Bounty & Want are going to ultimately require some clarifying language. They make sense to people familiar with other AW games, but their scope and permanence, in both narrative and game-mechanical sense, might benefit from being made more explicit.
There's a reference to "each 10%" when talking about Holdings diminishing and increasing. Does this mean "every 10% of the original total" or "10% relative to the last recorded value"? ie, 500 reducing to 450 obviously triggers this. Does the next trigger happen at 400 or 405? Small difference, but it may eventually matter.
Several people have said that the Stats could use renaming, and I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand, they do smack of core AW. On the other, I'm sure people in the Dark Ages were referred to as hot, cool, and sharp, and certainly the weird/wyrd connection can't be topped.
Claim Your Right is a great move, and it reminds me of Throwing an Insult in SotI. I have a feeling it's going to result in a lot of dispute in meatspace and online. Who decides what you have a right to? Can you claim a right even if you don't have one? If so, what differentiates a just claim from a spurious one, other than lucky dice?
The timing of choices in Go Into Battle is great. Obviously, the precise order of the options in the final draft will result in battles feeling different. For example, if you move Impress/Frighten/Dismay up in the order, it becomes a more "powerful" option, and improve the value of psychological warfare.
I'm not certain what is meant by "drawing someone out." Is the same move used for analysing an opponent from across a battle line (I patiently observe Korig's movements by watching his army, and try to ascertain his strategy) as for getting to know someone in conversation? If so, it Hot the right stat for both of these moves?
Common Knowledge is, in general, great. It's incredibly efficient at conveying just the right amount of setting.
When it comes to inheritance, is it intentional that none of the three systems is, eg, gender-neutral primogeniture?
The bits on religion are also efficient and colourful. I like that none of the religious systems is depicted as monolithic.
The tech section is excellent, again conveying just the right amount of detail. It could perhaps use a brief discussion of languages, trade-tongues, and literacy. Also on the topic of trade, some discussion of coinage might be useful, even in vague terms.
The map is, of course, a classic AW touch. I'm a little concerned about how to depict some of the Interests, though. How am I supposed to draw "a subsidy from the ambitious and dissatisfied," for example?
Monster and Dragon rules are simple and evocative. I'm a little perplexed about how it will work if a Dragon is unable to consider the Herald as an enemy, though, especially if ignoring the Herald is also not an option. I worry that the Herald will just bully the Dragon into slavery by saying "if you don't obey me, it will make you my enemy."
That's what I've got for now!