This is not about what an "Agile Architecture" could be. It is about the view from the opposite direction:
How can architecture work look like in order to act as an enabler to work in the spirit of the Manifesto for Agile Software Development?
There are answers to questions like.
•    Why is architecture documentation so rarely read?
•    How much technology focus is helpful and why?
•    What knowledge needs to be built by yourself in the first place?
•    What does programming have to do with architecture?
And above all: what does it mean in practice?

Target Audience: (Senior) Software Developers, Architects, Knowledge-Managers
Prerequisites: Curiosity for why architecture work is still so difficult.
Level: Advanced

Extended Abstract:
This is not about the question "How does a good architecture emerge in an 'Agile environment'". Nor is it about whether hexagonal, clean or onion architectures are good for ‘agile projects’.
Rather, it is about the view from the opposite direction:
What should architecture work look like in practice to act as an enabler for working in the way of the Manifesto for Agile Software Development?
Covering (at least) these points:

• Being read is more important than writing or: The worm must taste good to the fish, not to the angler.
• Concepts are more important than technologies or: Kafka is not a business interface
• Parnas and Dijksta are more important than reddit/r/docker or: "Have we reinvented the wheel yet this year?"
• Software crafting is an architecture issue or: Riding a bike is only easy if you've learned how to do it

We look at what is actually meant by this in detail, and how we can arrive at "good practices" for the daily work.