I haven't seen a clear definition of the 3 disciplines, since they put into question the rune-like/wand-like/gweth-like approach in favor of founts controlling that, and the most recent GM posts that I've read on it make it seem like these definitions may still be up in the air.

Here is my suggestion:

Artificing: Taking an object with no magical properties, and no practical use, and enchanting it such that it has a use as an ARTIFACT. Examples: I find an oak stick. I turn it into a burin by applying the proper sigils. The stick isn't much use by itself, and has no magical properties inherently. If I'd applied different sigils it might have become a TM foci, or a wand, or even gained very limited runestone like spell casting.

Binding: Taking an object with a practical use, like weapons or armor, and enhancing it with enchantment. Examples: I have a steel sword. I turn it into a flaming sword by applying the proper sigils. The sword is an object that already has a purpose. Its purpose is enhanced in some way by BINDING the sigils to it. This could enhance armor, or really any other crafted stuff. It could be improving the potency of Alchemy products, and I'd put divination tools in this discipline.

Invoking: Taking raw materials that have some innate magical properties, and INVOKING them into a useful enchantment. Examples: I find some raw cambrinth. I might or might not first use another craft to make it aesthetically or ergonomically appealing. Then I INVOKE the properties to turn it into a useful magical device. My skill and invoking techniques would help determine its capacity and such. This could be used for making functional chakrel. There could be techniques for preparing materials for artificing more powerful runestones, if you have the correct mineral. Also, many of the rare materials that have been written up for other crafts would have certain associations that could be exploited for coming up with new techniques and templates to use here.

What do you guys think of this model for the 3 disciplines?

I'm aware of those, as I mentioned in my post (what I referred to as the rune-like/wand-like/gweth-like), but the post from Kodius on 4/19/14 titled Decisions made me think they were questioning that model. Also, it looks like Artificing is going to include some things that match the old definitions of binding and/or invoking, via different founts. If I'm wrong, and they are sticking with those original definitions, then I guess this suggestion can just be ignored.