Just answering the question, not saying that it's true: it's seen as describing someone who has opinions about how to develop software or design systems without having the engineering expertise to back up those opinions.

Whether they have the chops or not, the Architect role has little to no skin in the game. The half-life for their knowledge of the system is on the order of a year, and it's a role you want some longevity in.

I've had better luck splitting architecture up between three or five leads (not four).

This is usually the problem, especially with Java architects. The many that I've encountered are often using dated methodologies/tooling that have been eclipsed by something else. The challenge is often keeping up with what's changed in the last x years, which has little incentive if one does not program much if at all.

I’m not just talking about industry standards. The system slowly changes away from them every time the people doing the work disagree, and sometimes even when they don’t. Eventually their model of the system and what it will do with new inputs or requirements becomes fiction.