I think everything sounds interesting and veering on the good side, though I disagree with nat 1s and 20s on skill checks being automatic failures/successes (unless they specifically define it in a similar way that Pathfinder 2E does, in which nat 1s and 20s just result in clearly defined worse penalties/greater successes). I am also not sure how to feel about critical hits being a player only mechanic AND restricted to weapon or unarmed damage. I feel like the former is unnecessary when the latter by itself would suffice in reining in the swinginess of the system.
Full judgement would have to be reserved for the next part of the changes/additions that they're planning on revealing next month, which is supposedly going to go over classes and I assume archetypes. By then, we should have a greater sense of the big picture - for example, there might be stuff in there that makes the critical stuff make complete sense. I already see people doomposting about Paladins and Rogues getting shafted by the critical change, but what if both classes actually had class features compensating for that like higher critical chance/critical damage modifiers?
I hope this means we get a wider variety of archetypes, including another arcane archer-type archetype for a caster class with a heavier caster/magical focus than the heavy martial focus that the existing Fighter version has, or a Paladin archetype that lets you smite with ranged attacks. I feel like archers have been pretty overlooked in 5E as far as character building options goes.
