I really enjoyed your article. Thanks so much for sharing it!

I especially like the way you've mapped each architecture to its typical uses. Interesting and useful idea.

I agree with Tim Garrett that most of the systems I've designed have incorporated at least five of these patterns: layered, client-server (i.e. the presentation layer is a client of the service layer, etc), event bus (as part of the service layer), MVC, and interpreter (as part of the SQL database). So choosing "a suitable architecture" [presumably from these ten patterns] may be a little misleading for some readers.

I'd also like to suggest that the term "architecture" (the way it's used here) may actually be technical design.

Personally, I define architecture as a process rather than as an attribute that a system exhibits.

"Architecture: The creation and consistent application of proven solutions to design requirements and problems within a given domain."

https://frickingruvin.medium.com/defining-architecture-edcb334d5cbb

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.