I stand by my original review - this is a fantastic piece of work both from a game design and layout standpoint.
However, something came up in my mind as a critique that I wanted to think through out loud. This is very nitpicky, but in the spirit of sharing thoughts about game design, I think it’s worth mentioning. One misgiving I have is that Rock-Paper-Scissors is historically, for most people, a purely adversarial game. It's very much a "finite game" - you win, I lose - and it always feels at least a little bad to lose or quite bad, if you end up on the wrong side of a losing streak. This is very much in contrast to how RPG story games are typically played as more "infinite games" that try to minimize the feeling of a zero-sum "I win, you lose" experience. With that style of zero-sum experience being the heart of the resolution mechanic I suspect many people may instinctively carry over the sentiment of “it's me vs. the GM" to win the R-P-S throw to get what they want to happen. It's subtle, but it seems likely that many people might have that feeling in their mind as they're throwing out their hand, based on years of playing R-P-S adversarially.
Rock-Paper-Scissors still seems like the obvious and elegant choice for this resolution system because it's always available with no extra supplies and almost everyone is familiar with how to play. What I’m pointing out seems like a distilled version of the “system matters” conversation that happens around different games.
There's little space to spare in the document because you were so skillfully economical with the layout, but I wonder if there's an opportunity to slip in a disclaimer/reminder that even though R-P-S is a win/lose game, RPG story games are a collaborative experience first and foremost rather than the typical win/lose experience of most games.