It's amazing the debate is still going on. I studied this topic five years ago, and discovered three different flavours too. I named them 
* the prescriptive vision - architecture by decree; 
* the descriptive vision - the (high-level) design is the architecture; 
* the constructive vision - the architecture is a reflection of the design principles. 
 
The descriptive vision is still widespread. You can hear architects in IT talk about the architecture they made, referring to either a 200 page document or a poster on the wall. Managers plan the creation of the architecture as a phase preceding the creation of the design. The implicit logic seems to be that artefacts made by an architect must be architecture. Only think of the documents they call "project-start architecture".  
 
However, when you refer to the origin of architecture, the building industry, you will soon find out that architecture is a concept bound to a construction. Architecture does not exist on paper, nor in decrees, nor in models. A design is a design, a rule is a rule, a pattern is a pattern, and an architecture is neither. 
 
Why is it, that in IT, we tend to hijack a word from another industry, and give it an altogether different meaning? What is a poorly designed architecture (http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/wireless/library/wi-arch7/) different from a poorly designed system? Why do we use the verb "to architect" if we mean "To design intentionally?" Is it just to impress? Well, for me it serves as a disqualifier.  
 
The IEEE working group did a very good job in defining those terms back in 2000. Architecture is a property of a system reflecting its internal cohesion; its harmony with its surroundings and its design principles. Or, officially, "The fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components, their relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the principles guiding its design and evolution." Note that in this definition, a system could be small, like an application, but also big, like an entire enterprise. Either way, a document simply is (part of) a view on the architecture description of the system.  
 
If only IT people would accept (and practice) the difference between an architecture description, a view as part of the architecture description – either made during the design of the system or afterwards – and the architecture itself, much confusion and mystification would be prevented. 
 
Let's end the debate, and start with the real work.