I’ve worked on projects designed by architects. They had big, beautiful interfaces defined by types. When I implemented the interfaces, working systems magically appeared. But it was my job to implement the interfaces. They didn’t get organic adoption from other engineers. Nobody was voluntarily choosing to implement their system via the big beautiful interface. These projects ultimately failed.
Projects I’ve worked on that succeeded had small, comprehensible interfaces. Engineers can quickly understand how to use them and see what the benefits are. The pitch is “our service does this one thing you need,” not “build your entire project by implementing the interface of our type-safe general data processing system.”
It most definitely sounds like a problem with these other engineers. Maybe I'm a bit out of touch here, but my view is that if engineers are not implementing services as per the architect's specifications, then they are not doing their job. If you hire an architect to design your house, and end up with a run-down shack because the design was complex and the builders didn't feel like working to the plan you'd be within your rights to seek legal recourse against them.
Perhaps it’s all good when the implementers work for the architects, but when the architects are designing an interface that is going to be sold, it has to be something people want to use.
Projects I’ve worked on that succeeded had small, comprehensible interfaces. Engineers can quickly understand how to use them and see what the benefits are. The pitch is “our service does this one thing you need,” not “build your entire project by implementing the interface of our type-safe general data processing system.”