You have to separate social-subjective elements from individually-subjective elements from objective elements. The objective elements are, simply put, "what is

You have to separate social-subjective elements from individually-subjective elements from objective elements. The objective elements are, simply put, "what is true of the object". And the subjective elements are "what is true of the subject. Where "object" is the target of understanding, and "subject" is the "understander" -- ie., not the human (as holding organs) but the human (as holding experiences). When I say, "the code has 100 lines" that is true in virtue of the object. It is meaningful in virtue of various conventions about what a "line" is and what "code" is. Let's not confuse what is being said for how it is said. The latter is subject-relative, the former is object-relative (ie., objective). Mathematics is about order. The target of mathematical description is objective (it is instanced by objects, not by experiences). However mathematics as a language is conventional (ie., social-subjective). What is being said (eg., that there are infinitely many primes) can be said many ways. Each of those ways is only meaningful given a social background. Likewise, "Architecture" is a term grouping together some -- but not all -- facts about software. (eg., inheritance dependencies, but not comment symbol choice). What is being said requires conventions in which to say it. OP article seems to confuse these issues mightily and I think would impair someone looking to understand "architecture" without prior experience. It is not merely "what's important". Many things are important.