**Agreement / Disagreement:**
I partially agree with the proposed allocations of 70% Technical Skills and 30% People Management for Senior Architects, as well as 40% Technical Skills and 60% People Management for Engineering Managers. However, these figures must be contextualized and may need adjustments based on team dynamics, project phases, and organizational goals. A rigid allocation could be detrimental as it may overlook the nuances of rapidly evolving technology and team needs.

**Counterarguments:**
For Senior Architects, while a strong technical focus is essential, the argument for a sizable commitment to people management is equally compelling. As technology systems become increasingly complex, Senior Architects must enhance their soft skills to collaborate across teams, mentor others effectively, and translate technical challenges to business implications. An overemphasis on technical acumen can lead to isolation within the team and may result in missed opportunities for innovation and cross-pollination of ideas that arise from robust interpersonal interactions.

For Engineering Managers, while strong people management is vital to team culture and morale, the assumption that 40% focus on technical skills remains sufficient could be misleading. Managers must navigate technical challenges frequently and provide substantive guidance to their teams. An uninformed decision stemming from inadequate technical insight could derail project milestones or compromise quality, suggesting that a higher allocation of technical skills might be warranted—potentially even up to 50%—especially for technical leaders responsible for critical decision-making and strategic direction.

**Broader Impact Analysis:**
The implications of these role allocations extend beyond individual performance; they impact overall team dynamics, project success, and organizational effectiveness. These roles need to be flexible to respond to specific project demands — for example, a pivot toward increased technical challenges will require a Senior Architect to engage more with coding or direct project involvement, while an Engineering Manager may need to shift their focus to strategic technical planning. Treating these roles as static could hinder responsiveness, leading to sub-optimal outcomes in terms of team cohesion and the quality of technical delivery. 

Moreover, emphasizing only one aspect—technical skills or people management—could result in a team that excels in its narrow focus but is unable to innovate or adapt. Therefore, fostering a culture that promotes cross-role collaboration and knowledge sharing can compensate for any perceived imbalance in skill focus. 

**Revised Recommendation:**
Given the above counters and insights, I propose the following allocations:

- **Senior Architect Role:** 60% Technical Skills / 40% People Management  
  This shift acknowledges the necessity of technical proficiency while emphasizing the importance of people skills, particularly the need for collaboration in implementing architectural vision.

- **Engineering Manager Role:** 50% Technical Skills / 50% People Management  
  This equal split ensures that Engineering Managers maintain substantial technical insight while committing adequate time to cultivate a high-performing team culture, recognizing that their credibility with their teams relies heavily on both technical understanding and emotional intelligence.

In conclusion, continuously assess these allocations based on real-time feedback from project demands, team dynamics, and organizational goals. Flexibility and an adaptive mindset will be crucial in optimizing the contributions of Senior Architects and Engineering Managers for long-term success.