[blub]

It's unfortunate that this off-topic, general comment has derailed what could have been an interesting discussion about specific types of architecture (large HW/SW systems). And I have a feeling that like several other commenters you have some specific architecture work in mind and are incorrectly generalizing based on it.

Taking part in stand-ups for instance would be a complete waste of time for anything except application architecture and it's only relevant in projects which are using Scrum. Even then, it's possible to do the job by being available (at the risk of missing some unofficial or ephemeral info) and taking part in the sprint review. I prefer involving the team in design decisions and giving them freedom to implement things as they see fit, as long as the architectural requirements are being met.

The usefulness of coding skills decreases the higher one climbs the abstraction ladder. Writing production code for a project is from my POV an anti-pattern unless we're talking application architecture and the architect is only part of that one project, which sounds like title inflation for anything except bigger applications. In my experience there were two kinds of situations where it was worth it to write code: tackling less glamorous, but useful tasks that the team didn't have time for and solving trickier problems that the team couldn't yet work out. Otherwise I expect and prefer mature dev teams which can implement on their own, while I am available for guidance if needed and to ensure that the business reqs are correctly translated and their piece of software integrates properly in the platform.

Personally, I found domain knowledge, connections and social skills invaluable for architecture roles. Technical skills are also valuable, but they're table stakes to be honest.