Ask an experienced architect for the best architecture and the honest ones give the same answer: it depends. This is not evasion. It is the entire discipline compressed into two words. "Best practice" is the phrase people reach for when they want the authority of a decision without the work of making one.
Architecture is not a catalog of correct answers. It is a set of trade-offs bound to a specific context — this team, this load, this rate of change, this tolerance for being wrong. Move the context and the "right" choice becomes the wrong one without a single line changing. The microservices that saved one company sink another; the monolith that is technical debt in one story is the only reason another shipped. The pattern was never good or bad. The fit was.
This is also why "future-proof architecture" is a contradiction sold as a virtue. You cannot optimize for a future you cannot specify; what gets built instead is present-day cost in the name of a flexibility no one will use the way they imagined. Architecture that tries to be right for every future is reliably wrong for the present — the only context that actually exists.
The mature move is to treat architecture as a negotiation that never closes: revisited as the context shifts, documented for the learning rather than to lock in the status quo. The question is never "is this the right architecture." It is "right for what, for whom, for how long." A team that cannot name the context it is designing for has not chosen an architecture. It has copied one.