Perfect example. You are my exhibit A. The first step in resolving an action is to pick a skill group, not to pick the skill group of the skill you intend to you. Your goal is to persuade, that means you should be using social approaches. If your writing is indeed trying to make a logical appeal, than reason would be the correct approach. You might have used the scholar skill groups approaches to recall the knowledge you need. You might than use the reason approach (earth ring) along side the law skill to convince someone that the law demands they do X.
There is no group restriction. Follow the steps and stop trying to color inside lines that don’t exist. Incidentally, this is why I am in favor of changing the name of skill groups to approach groups. Other than for advancement, the groups matter because they determine which approaches you should use.
I could very well see a kind of intrigue where you are trying to collect rhetorical points by researching and writing to people. You could even fit in some artisan approaches in there. Refine your work, adapt quotes from Leadership or the Tao. Maybe do it as a kind of race where everyone has X number of downtime actions and at the end the person who meets at least X number of points and also has the highest convinces the lord to adopt their stance (the minimum being there because you have to be convincing, the highest being there to be more convincing than others who are also petitioning).

Just because something is being changed does not mean it didn’t work*. The beta testers ruined all the best features in Only War, which is why I’m here to try and stop it from happening again. Maybe my feedback will encourage someone to refine the ideas they have instead of trying to please people who are not on board with the vision they have for this game. 
How long someone has been saying something or doing something has absolutely zero to do with how correct they are. So how long you or anyone else has been doing something is strictly irrelevant.
What am I supposed to think? I’ve tried it. It works. I’ve watched people complain about it in the same breath as they proved they didn’t understand it. One example I saw (Podcast of the Five Rings) was using seafaring to fix a ship. “None of these trade approaches seem to make sense.” Well, I know they didn’t read the skill since it specifically tells you which approach is used for fixing a ship. I also know they didn’t use the system put in place for making rolls, since they would have selected the Artisan skillgroup which has a very clear approach for fixing/repairing.
I watched someone complain about the rules when they clearly did not use or reference them. I’ve seen it elsewhere as well. I’ve seen people say things like, “Void will be the only ring you will be likely to use with Survival because its the subsist approach, and that is what survival is all about.” Yeah, again I know they didn’t read the book, because the examples do not bear this out. This same person had no idea that horsemanship was under the umbrella of survival. I’ve also seen people who think sneaking is a part of skullduggery. It’s ignorant. It’s not me casting stones, it’s them being ignorant.
* Take Fate Core. It’s a game that works. So why would they put out Fate Accelerate or the Toolkit if it already worked? Changes are not an indication of anything wrong with the original. The changed version is not always better than the original. 

I shouldn’t have used the term metagaming. It means too many things to too many people. My favored use of it wasn’t even the one I invoked. Anyhow, rephrasing: they are trying to gain a mechanical advantage they haven’t earned yet. L5R has many ways you can discover someone’s weaknesses or desires. If they had tried to discover the person’s flaws they might have known that being small was not one of them.
I do take issue with your described style of powergaming only because the player is not the one who has final say on which ring is to be used on any test. They can try to take actions in line with their strengths, but it’s the GM who gets to tell them that the approach they are describing is not what they are asking to roll with. Hence the game includes a moderator to keep that type of powergaming from happening.

I don't understand why people think you couldn't ruin a blade (or any object) while doing maintenance to it. Maybe you are changing the angle of the grind (thus better supporting the edge) to give it durable. Or maybe you are even tempering the steel once again to soften the spine of the blade or make it better able to flex. Any of these operations could damage the sword significantly. Even sharpening could hurt a sword (perhaps dulling the blade instead of sharpening it). Nowhere in the beta does it say there will be no consequences for failed checks other than time lost.

I don't understand why people think you couldn't ruin a blade (or any object) while doing maintenance to it. Maybe you are changing the angle of the grind (thus better supporting the edge) to give it durable. Or maybe you are even tempering the steel once again to soften the spine of the blade or make it better able to flex. Any of these operations could damage the sword significantly. Even sharpening could hurt a sword (perhaps dulling the blade instead of sharpening it). Nowhere in the beta does it say there will be no consequences for failed checks other than time lost.

If failure only results in trying the same roll again under the same conditions with the same potential consequences, than it fails to meet the criterion that the consequence of failure must be interesting. 
This is not a GM fix, this is in the rules. Complaining that the rules allow for situations when they do no such thing is ridiculous, and suggests that you are looking for things to complain about, as well as inventing things to complain about when that fails. This is not helpful.

I shouldn’t have used the term metagaming. It means too many things to too many people. My favored use of it wasn’t even the one I invoked. Anyhow, rephrasing: they are trying to gain a mechanical advantage they haven’t earned yet. L5R has many ways you can discover someone’s weaknesses or desires. If they had tried to discover the person’s flaws they might have known that being small was not one of them.
I do take issue with your described style of powergaming only because the player is not the one who has final say on which ring is to be used on any test. They can try to take actions in line with their strengths, but it’s the GM who gets to tell them that the approach they are describing is not what they are asking to roll with. Hence the game includes a moderator to keep that type of powergaming from happening.

No chance at all you say? Seems like you need to play a super hero rpg or two. Intimidation done well looks like this:
”Either step aside or your wife will have a hard trip ahead of her when she finishes viewing the cherry blossoms. Oh, and if you think doing anything to me will stop that, think again. I have men all over, and if I don’t get back to them then her fate is all but sealed.”
Yeah, be as big a badass as you want. It won’t stop the world from hitting you where you are weak. In addition you might have noticed that my thug has a goal other than scaring you. Sure, he wants you to feel fear, but that’s not his goal. His goal is to get you to clear out of his way so that he can go do X (maybe talk to your lord, maybe extort him, maybe kill him). A single check likely won’t achieve that, but it will make you believe that he will do it. So you can’t ignore that his threat felt credible, but you might decide to cut him down because you value your honor more than your wife. Perhaps its actually a bad marriage and you’d prefer she ended up dead anyway. So you kill him and thank your lucky stars.
See, social checks aren’t mind control. Inciting someone won’t get them to do what you want every time. Success does mean though that you can’t just act like it never happened. Maybe this guy isn’t strong, but his gang could threaten anyone you have to leave alone. You don’t have to crap yourself, but you do have to do something, feel something. 

Well, I think this points to an interesting thing. You can be small without having it as an advantage. Perhaps you just aren’t good at making the best use of your size. One day you might accomplish something where your small stature mattered and then perhaps you will pick up the advantage.
The system isn’t telling you that you can’t be X. It’s saying that it’s not mechanically important yet. My character can enjoy drinking sake without having sake as a passion. Perhaps it will eventually develop into passion, but right now it’s not big enough a thing for my character.
Honestly, I feel like you could do worse than answering the question and picking something unrelated. At least you developed some backstory, even if the two aren’t linked.

You haven't given any evidence that the system is broken.  You've given your opinion, opinion isn't fact.

Or a person being successfully intimidated, hmm. 

Using 2 opportunities to cause a critical strike is an option that comes from the Strike action, not any Attack action
( Strike is an Attack action, not the other way around)

Just because something is being changed does not mean it didn’t work*. The beta testers ruined all the best features in Only War, which is why I’m here to try and stop it from happening again. Maybe my feedback will encourage someone to refine the ideas they have instead of trying to please people who are not on board with the vision they have for this game. 
How long someone has been saying something or doing something has absolutely zero to do with how correct they are. So how long you or anyone else has been doing something is strictly irrelevant.
What am I supposed to think? I’ve tried it. It works. I’ve watched people complain about it in the same breath as they proved they didn’t understand it. One example I saw (Podcast of the Five Rings) was using seafaring to fix a ship. “None of these trade approaches seem to make sense.” Well, I know they didn’t read the skill since it specifically tells you which approach is used for fixing a ship. I also know they didn’t use the system put in place for making rolls, since they would have selected the Artisan skillgroup which has a very clear approach for fixing/repairing.
I watched someone complain about the rules when they clearly did not use or reference them. I’ve seen it elsewhere as well. I’ve seen people say things like, “Void will be the only ring you will be likely to use with Survival because its the subsist approach, and that is what survival is all about.” Yeah, again I know they didn’t read the book, because the examples do not bear this out. This same person had no idea that horsemanship was under the umbrella of survival. I’ve also seen people who think sneaking is a part of skullduggery. It’s ignorant. It’s not me casting stones, it’s them being ignorant.
* Take Fate Core. It’s a game that works. So why would they put out Fate Accelerate or the Toolkit if it already worked? Changes are not an indication of anything wrong with the original. The changed version is not always better than the original. 

I guess the sixteen years I've spent roleplaying means nothing and I'm not a "traditional" roleplayer. I like crunch. I like story. I like playing my characters, and I do a lot more roleplaying without utilizing dice systems at all than I do with.
This game uses dice differently than the games you're used to. I understand that's different and you might not like that, but it doesn't make it wrong. Stop trying to speak for everybody, and stop separating people into false groups. You're not doing anybody any favors. 

I really strongly dislike this kind of change. I think skill groups should be changed to approach groups. Using the given process for rolling dice, I like that the skill groups narrow which approaches you need to look at down from 25 to 5. Listing the approaches without their groups makes them confusing. I have to look at 25 options instead of 5.
The system works well as written, people just need to actually follow the rules instead of trying to jump ahead or assume they know what they mean.