The OP list doesn't work, because we know there is 6 skills per archetype. His list have 5 skills for the Warrior and 7 for the Thief and none of the Thief skill make sense in the Warrior archetype. We know all the Mage skills from previews.
Warrior
One-Handed
Two-Handed
Shield
Heavy Armour
Smithing
? (missing skill)
Mage
Enchanting
Conjuration
Destruction
Alteration
Restoration
Illusion
Thief (who is (are) the imposter(s)?)
Alchemy
Archery
Sneak
Security
Light Armour
Speechcraft
Mercantile
Merge Speechcraft and Mercantile and the Thief is fixed, but we still have one missing Warrior skill...
I think this is all fair enough. Some thoughts in response.
1. One question is how seriously to take the idea that there will be 6 skills per archetype. Without classes and birthsigns, what's the motivation for that?
2. Even if there are 6 skills per archetype, it's not clear that none of the "Thief" skills can be moved to "Combat" skills. Perhaps Archery will be moved to "Combat" - thanks to Wintermane who mentioned this earlier in the thread. This is surely not implausible. Remember: one of the seemingly "Mage" skills - Alchemy - has been moved to the "Thief" skills. So it's not unprecedented that skills previously under one category will be moved to a different one. And Archery isn't a terrible fit for the "Combat" skills - it's certainly no worse than Alchemy is for "Stealth".
In general, while I don't disagree with a lot of the people suggesting that Speechcraft and Mercantile have been merged, or that the Armour skills have been merged (or dropped entirely), I think an important thing to keep in mind for the purposes of speculation is
what will be the replacement skills? With Acrobatics, Athletics, and Hand-to-Hand removed, there's 18 skills. If we start removing/merging even more, new skills need to be invented to take the total number back up to 18.
Of course, this might just be my idiosyncrasy.
You might be happy to say "well, they just have to come up with something new. Don't know what it might be, though". I guess I'd like to see something more concrete and specific before I abandon my initial hypothesis (the one I gave in the OP).
Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion.