In a large shop there is more of a need for specialization in titles. I think there is a difference between analyst and architect. In large shops, architects don’t do much hands-on work (i.e. coding and configuration); its more analysis, recommendation and guidance, at the 50,000 ft level.
Calling yourself an analyst may be closer to your job function, and refining it to ‘Integration Analyst’ may provide an outsider with a better idea of what you do (and covers a little more ground than Interface Analyst). Architect always sounds better, but it may set an expectation for analysis vs. technical work.
I’ve seen differentiation in architect roles between strategic (on a higher, organizational level) and application (on a project level). And some places could just add ‘- interfaces’ to an analyst-programmer role (so it would be analyst programmer – interfaces). Typically HR wants to limit the number of roles or progressions, or make sure that if one is established, that it will be used be multiple people, and it may be difficult to get something really specific. I’d say if you do design at a higher, application level, then you could go with architect, otherwise I’d go with an analyst, and if possible, integration analyst. Also, of course, you need to set the level – junior, senior, lead, etc.
.
.