The current FAQ and Errata for Heavy Gear is an ongoing project. Currently the types of issues that are coming up are knock on effects for the sub lists and a few minor notes for the rules. Largely the issues that are discovered are resolved because you guys, the players, take action by posting to the forums in the Development forum.
This feedback is very important because player feedback vastly improves the quality of the game. Comments help to catch more issues than just our eyes alone can. Part of this is that I simply can't play test every interaction and every rule as completely as you, the player community, can. For a very simple reason. I'm biased.
For anyone who is not familiar with the concept of observer bias it's the idea that no opinion or viewpoint can be unaffected by the observer. In the case of Heavy Gear I am biased by my experience playing the game which is a function of the terrain I use, the models I have available, and my tactical preferences. Now I've been playing miniature table top games since 1993 starting with Battletech and the original 40K then dozens of different games and game companies later my preference is for the long game. I tend to eschew the direct approach and go for surgical strikes until I can roll over my opponent. I tend to balanced forces with a variety of models to fill different roles. I tend not to spam one type of model (Taking excessive numbers of one type) except for the core ones for each force (Hunter/Jager/Acco/F2-21). That said I to try to play test against my type, I just can't objectively rely on my observations alone.
The best way to remove bias is to get independent data. This means other people play the game, use and abuse the rules and report when they find an issue. The best way for this to happen is that a player posts an observation they have about a balance issue, or a rules question and other players can compare it to their experience and chime in to agree or disagree. It's an active process that has proven to be successful. Ideally this should be leading to a small yearly build-up for FAQ followed by a yearly/bi-yearly update to the Living Rule Book.
Some issues are simply a case of grammar, or a typo. One example of this is the errata on impact damage and how crippled models are affected by it. The rule previously stated that you applied the standard crippled modifier which would require the player to remove a D6 from the piloting test. This makes no sense and is the opposite of what we want. There is no way that being crippled will make you get less damage from an impact.
The Errata now states: 13.2 Impacts: 4th bullet: Change "Apply only the critical damage standard modifier (See 2.2)." to "Add +1D6 to the Impact piloting roll if the model is crippled. Add this dice after applying the +/-XD6 for difference in armor rating." (added 27/10/2016)
This is the kind of thing that plagues rules writers. I'm intimately familiar with the core rules and the all the various models etc but there are going to be spots in the rules and model lists where there is a mistake or error that I don't catch simply because my closeness to the process. To counter this DP9 has started to practice a more open design process. As much as I wish DP9 had a gulag of captive play testers in the basement that I could feed kibble and get results from non-stop the reality is that we depend on the players, you especially, to be involved and interested.
This means that in the future there may be sections of the rules that I open up for a period to discussion specifically, and that new models and rules will be let out to run free range earlier than you might be used to with other companies. Next spring we will be having a kickstarter for Peace River, NuCoal, and Utopia. We'll release the lists of what our kickstarter model targets are for comment long before that because we need your input on what you want to see, and in some cases, what they'll look like.