I think no names for the type should be given, because it too easily leads to even more confusing stereotyping than what is already present in typology. What one person knows/understands/perceives an Architect/Engineer/Designer to be is certainly to be different from others, particularly today when the work of Architects and Designers is portrayed popularly far different from the reality of it.
Still, forced to choose I still prefer Architect. If one seeks what the meaning of 'architectonics' one could find such things as "the structural arrangement or makeup of a system", "the system of structure", "the unifying structural design of something", "The scientific systematization of knowledge" and I think the Architectural similarity is extremely appropriate, in the sense that an architect is supposed to work with a complex system at both broad and detailed scales and coherently integrating a multiplicity of disciplines to solve a variety of compounded problems, must bring disparate knowledge of statics, materials, industrial production, construction, economics, ecology, history, 'art', philosophy, anthropology/sociology and psychology into a single logical whole by the synthesizing process of design. Is this not what the Ti-Ne attempts to do, the understanding of systems, and the creation of systems for understanding? Is this not the same reason terms such as Computer Architecture or Software Architecture have chosen the term, to emphasize the complexity of the task, as opposed to the non-specific term Design (which at times can be very simple). Maybe the word 'Engineer' is presently understood as focusing on mathematics and science and clearly defined methodologies to the exclusion of the more social and philosophical and intuitive aspects of 'Design' in general, and in such a way could be inappropriate for the wide range of interests the INTP type exhibits.
One could argue forever about nuances, connotations, and the etymologies of these three words, all of which are interrelated. Before the 18th century strong distinction between architects and engineers (and generalized compartmentalization of fields of knowledge) due to the industrial revolution, which came to redefine both words in the way we now understand, there was much overlap between fields that today are (perhaps erroneously) separate. If one goes back to the origin of the word 'Architect', from Vitruvius' De architectura, one would see that the book not only deals with buildings but with many things that would be considered structural, civil, and mechanical engineering or other sciences nowadays, including such things as aqueducts, drainage systems, siege engines, heating systems, astronomical observations, geometric/mathematic principles and other mechanical things such as cranes and water wheels and Archimedes' screws. In fact it is the source of the story of Archimedes' Eureka! moment in his bathtub. In other words, the whole conception of the 'Renaissance Man' / Polymath was in several ways deeply influenced by the Roman conception of the 'Architect' as portrayed by Vitruvius, and indeed many of the great thinkers of that era were closer to that idea of 'Architect' than what is commonly understood today.
Having written all that, perhaps the word Polymath could prove most useful, and I have certainly seen it used, though it might garner accusations of pretentiousness. (Googling Intp polymath will actually have this forum as the first result. Incidentally, Intp polyamory puts us in the third ((it was an autocomplete suggestion))
