I think what people are trying to get at are what kind of guidelines and limitations do these mechanics follow.
For example. If I put 10 points into Medical Training, what exactly does this correlate to in-game? Do I get a +10 bonus on my roll, ie, roll 1d20, add 10 to my result? Do I get a +1 for every 2 points in a skill? Do you need to beat a certain "score" when rolling to achieve success, or is it against an opposed roll?
Can I just put 50 points into Medical Training and become Blackjack and House rolled into one? Is there a hard cap? etc.
It's all well and good to make mechanics, because it helps future homebrew, but no one knows exactly how things are interacting yet.
We have 50 points for 5 Skills, and we have Strength, Vitality, Intelligence and Dexterity, but how are those determined? Do we spend part of the 50 points on the stats too?
You did state that the more points you put into something, the more expensive it becomes to use, which I take to mean that each additional "level" of said skill or stat costs more points than the one that came before it, which makes sense too, however there is a clear point where the extra cost is not worth the +1 gain, and it would be fairly easy to determine an optimal build.
No one is trying to bust your chops or anything, but I believe Silhar was looking for more concrete mathematical answers to his questions instead of abstracts. It is my personal experience that play by post games work a lot better with very rules light systems / point based resolution or something like Amber Diceless. It is entirely possible to do a mechanically full bodied campaign but it is very, very slow and will take a long time, especially if confirming dice rolls, and having players roll, wait to find out if they succeeded or not, and then post their success or failure accordingly.
Just my two cents!