This is neat! A very promising demo. There're rough edges as I'd expect in anything in alpha, but I already really like the smart, skilled use of layering, colour motifs, silhouettes, insets, and (in some scenes) sound. Narratively, there were transitions and conversations here which felt somewhat oblique, and a few points in the prose felt like they needed contractions or a helping comma to feel natural, but I'm guessing that these foibles too can be chalked up to the project's relatively early state. The thorough research into early archery is very pleasing, and I was delighted to see an anchoress. Or rather—more correctly—to hear and not see an anchoress.
I love the choice of a fifteenth-century setting that already regards Robin Hood tales as part of its own cultural fabric. Quite rightly, you borrow from and play with history and legend rather than feeling beholden to them, which I applaud. The setting in the 1450s prompted me to jot down some stray thoughts as I read, which I offer in case they're helpful; please feel free to ignore them!
The lexis sometimes seems slightly chronologically unstable. I couldn't quite tell, as a reader, whether I was invited to enjoy this as a deliberately archaising work or as a work in a historical setting with natural present-day language. Both approaches are good, but now and then it felt like we were oscillating between them. For instance, if we're going to go back to the Middle English etymons of present-day brag/bragging and yeah, why not do that for other words? Thee is an intimate second-person pronoun in later Middle English (later ME had T–V distinction); at least one character uses it to Robin, but (if my short-term memory serves) Robin and Red don't use it for each other as one might perhaps expect of co-conspirators—or if Robin is in some sense in Red's service, Red could address Robin as thee and Robin could address Red as you (or ye). Gramerci was certainly a widely understood way to express gratitude, but it was also a slightly elevated and formal way given its French origins: does that fit with all its uses here? Red and the grandmother quoting Sun Tzu amused me, but using disposition in the fifteenth century makes Red sound like an ecclesiastic with a university degree. Working in the other direction, spooked stuck out to me because it only enters English in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century, and local only expands beyond use in medical contexts some time after the fifteenth century. &c &c.
No doubt some of these things are small, pedantic details, ones only a small-minded pedant would think of! I wonder whether even for the general reader, though, either more studied, systematic archaism, or more natural modern language might prove smoother; either option would carry less risk of falling between two stools. While I'm talking small pedantic details, I suspect someone in the 1450s would possibly have called the civic authorities in Nottingham not a local council but (confusingly for us) the 'corporation': Nottingham had become a county corporate in the 1440s. (Nottingham, not Nottinghamshire, despite 'county corporate' involving the word 'county'.) You don't have to care about this, though, because as noted above you have a licence to borrow from history but no obligation to follow it…
Small details like these are one thing; the overall project another. As I said, this seems lovely, and I wish you every success with it!
I will be watching with interest for updates.