This is also the type of thing that makes having separate software architects that aren't actually maintaining the software generally a nonsensical idea.

There are too many decisions, technical details, and active changes to have someone come in and give direction from on high at intervals.

Maybe at the beginning it could make sense sort of, but projects have to evolve and more often than not discover something important early on in the implementation or when adding "easy" features, and if someone is good at doing software design then you may need them even more at that point. But they may easily be detrimental if they are not closely involved and following the rest of the project details.

I guess I'm lucky not to have worked at a place with a role for software architects who don't actually write code. I honestly don't know how that would work. However, I think I can appreciate the author's point. Any sufficiently complex piece of existing software is kind of like a chess game in progress. There is a place for general principles of chess strategy, but once the game is going, general strategy is much less relevant than specific insights into the current state of play, and a player would probably not appreciate advice from someone who has read a lot of chess books but hasn't looked at the current state of the board.