Bullets that read as four years of capability maps, current-state and target-state diagrams, transformation roadmap deliverables, and decks - with no shipped systems on the other side - trigger the dominant failure mode. Per Paul Preiss (IASA founder) in TechTarget: "Enterprise architecture still reports to IT and is still primarily a cost minimization and infrastructure optimization process that is focused on documentation as opposed to delivery." For every "led / architected / defined" bullet, demand a corresponding "shipped / delivered / operated" outcome with a quantitative measure (cost saved, applications decommissioned, latency cut, audit cleared, customers migrated). The PowerPoint-to-shipped ratio should be at most 1:2.

"Frameworks: TOGAF, Zachman, ArchiMate, BIZBOK, FEAF, DoDAF, SABSA, NIST, ITIL, COBIT, PRINCE2, Lean..." reads as cargo-culting. No real EA uses ten frameworks; two or three well-applied is the realistic upper bound. Per CIO Magazine's "6 deadly sins": "Frameworks like TOGAF offer consistency but can become dogmatic obstacles." List only frameworks you have applied at portfolio scale, paired with engagement and outcome.

"Designed scalable, secure, robust enterprise solutions aligning IT strategy with business objectives" is ATS-keyword-stuffed but human-reader-empty. Use named-scope, named-outcome, named-stakeholder. "Architected the event-driven integration layer (Kafka + Confluent) for the bank's 4 core systems, eliminating $1.8M annual ETL spend and reducing batch latency from 6 hours to 12 minutes" beats the generic claim.

Solution-architect-level work (one system, one application) listed under an "Enterprise Architect" title reads as title inflation. Either reframe bullets to surface the portfolio-level effect ("pattern adopted across 6 product lines via the internal ARB") or retitle the header for the actual scope. Hiring managers cross-reference scope against title in the first 30 seconds of the screen and read the mismatch immediately.

ATS keyword density on certifications is front-weighted, and hiring managers skim the summary line first. Surface the top 4 certifications in the summary line; the full list lives in a dedicated section near the top. Example: "TOGAF 10 Certified | AWS Solutions Architect Professional | CISSP".

Industry consensus across Indeed Career Advice, VisualCV, and Enhancv 2026 converges on the two-page rule for EAs unless the candidate has more than 25 years of experience. Three-page resumes get cut at the screening pass. Trim 8+ year-old roles to title + company + dates + 1 line; lead with current scope; push early-career roles to a dense closing block.

Resumes that read as 2018-current (RESTful APIs, microservices, DevOps, cloud migration) with no mention of AI governance, agentic-AI policy, FinOps, platform engineering, IDPs, zero-trust per NIST SP 800-207, data mesh, or M&A IT integration read as out-of-date. Per Avolution 2026 (92% AI-priority, 72% data-and-AI skills priority), surface what is real - model selection participation, RAG pilots, AI governance committee membership, vendor evaluation of agentic platforms.

"Worked with stakeholders to align technology strategy" reveals the candidate doesn't know who the stakeholders are. EAs report to CIO/CTO and influence VP/SVP-level peers. Name the rollup: "Presented quarterly architecture review to CIO + CFO + 4 BU GMs; gained buy-in for the data-mesh consolidation worth $4.7M annualized savings."

"Led enterprise architecture function. Managed architecture team." is not a result. Per ResumeWorded 2026, hiring-manager action verbs are Architected, Spearheaded, Reduced, Scaled, Optimized, Drove, Launched. Pair every leadership verb with a concrete outcome.

TOGAF 10 has been current since 2022 (The Open Group). Either re-certify, or label honestly: "TOGAF 9 Certified (2015) - TOGAF 10 self-study completed Q1 2026; certification scheduled June 2026." The honest framing reads as engaged; silent older cert reads as stale.