What I'm trying to say here is that I think that RM rules system has a flaw in its internal logic: it's basically trying to do two things, each of them being the opposite of the other.
It tries to simulate a fantasy world, to be a set of "physical" rules of that world, to which all characters must obey at the same manner. A world where what the characters (and, more importantly, their players) want doesn't mean anything, as they're just like all others inhabitants of the world.
And, at the same time it tries to have you use your characters to tell a story where they are the protagonists, the most important people in the world (again, by important I don't mean powerful! You can be a simple farmer doing ordinary things all day, but if you're the protagonist of a story, you're the most important person in it!).
...
I've got nothing against both of things, but I think they're mutually exclusive.
IMHO there are simple means which let both goals (if the above were indeed goals of the designers) be achieved. One thing is that the story the GM creates will usually focus on the PCs. This makes them more important for the story than the rest of the game world which is only in the background. And if they should be powerful beings in the game worlds then the PCs will simply be of higher level than the average beings in the game world. So they will still use the same rules that are applicable for all characters in the game world, but they will still be more powerful due to their higher level.
As many RPGs RM uses some rules that give PCs an edge over NPCs of the same level e.g. the stats of a PC are a bit higher than the average, PCs can have Fate Points to avert death a few times.
So I don't see why the above two goals should be mutually exclusive.
And this sort of "schizophrenia" IMHO is the cause of a lot of problems that we often complain about or try to find a solution to here on the boards.
I'm talking of problems like:
- skill bloat: I realized that the number of skills is a false problem. The real problem is not the number of skills, but their importance (I can hear you say:"well yes, we already knew that!" but let me finish 
).
If you're trying to simulate a world then it's quite logical to have an almost infinite number of skills and it's also logical that some skills will be less useful than others.
OTOH if you want to make your characters the protagonists the system should make sure that all of your character skills are equally important. If you spend ranks in cooking it's probably because it's an aspect of your character that you think is important and you'd like to explore. So the rules should give you a way to do that, to make stories about your character cooking. 
It is IMO nothing special to RM that an RPG tries to "simulate" a world. The question is how far this simulation goes. I know the old slogan on some RM books "Make it real, make it Rolemaster!". But even though such a sentence was printed on some old RM books, I am quite sure that RM never intended to create a perfect real world simulation.
Therefore it is the choice of the RM players and GMs how much detail they want to have. RM2 and RMC fortunately have a very limited set of "primary" skills and additional skills are optional. So if your style of play involves very much detail about the characters abilities then the group should perhaps go for more skills, if this is too much detail for them, then they might leave the "secondary" skills aside. RMSS/RMFRP does not have this core and optional skills, so the GM has to decide which skills to use and which not and perhaps also modify DPs if removing many of the skills.
- randomness of criticals: again, if you're trying to simulate a world, then critical randomness isn't a real problem, the problem is that you spend 30+ minutes making a sheet for your character, which maybe will die after 5 minutes of play...
If instead you're trying to make your character the protagonist of a story... well, then such randomness is a problem! I'm not saying that your character shouldn't die at all, but just that he shouldn't die doing things that you think are meaningless (like, you know, fighting that kobold just before the Big Bad Boss 
).
I agree so far that it demotivates players to spend time and energy into creating and playing a character and this character dies from a single unfortunate critical. But this applies to RPGs which try to give a very realistic world simulation as well as those that don't go into much detail. Btw., RMs criticals and attack tables are certainly not a part of the game where the focus was on very much realism - and this is good. The focus is more on flavour of the game.
Nevertheless the critical hits lead to combat being much less predictable than in a game were the PC has a set of hit points and these are continually reduced when he takes damage. As the combat rules are, it can easily happen that a character suddenly dies from an unfortunate critical roll - exactly what can demotivate a player. It would IMO have been better to include rules such as the Fate Point rule from the start and have it as a core rule, so that these unfortunate PC deaths can be averted.
So, I'm NOT saying "hey guys, let's scrap realism and make all PCs invincible heroes above all others characters in the world!".
I'm saying: "let's find a way to be sure that RM does what we want it to do!".
IMO you need nothing but the Fate Point rule from Channeling Companion and the main problem you mentioned is solved. The changes you proposed to the Fate Point rule might work well for your game, but they lead away from the focus you had in this older posting, which seems to have been to enable the PCs to be the heroes in the game and not letting them die suddenly from an unlucky roll.
