Fascinating debate
Certainly in one sense the use of the word 'archival', when applied to an inkjet print, could be seen as a purely marketing term. Pretentious BS. Because there is no universally accepted definition of what 'archival' is. It is not something that is quantifiable. And the physical environment that the print lives in will probably have more effect on its longevity then the materials used. So the term 'archival' could be considered as vague and inaccurate as Giclee.
But on the other hand, it is, in theory, entirely possible to make an inkjet print using dye inks on newsprint and then sell it as 'inkjet print'.
That is essentially why the dreaded term 'Giclee' was invented. To differentiate between an inkjet print made using long-lasting (and expensive) materials and an inkjet print made using short term (and cheap) materials.
Certainly big institutions like museums will generally only acquire inkjet prints that are made using the most 'light-fast' materials available. I know this from personal experience where photographers have asked me to print something for a museum and I have then been asked by the institution to supply specific details about the print before it will be accepted (pigment ink, cotton rag etc). So the museum knows the material used, and understands what that means, and that the print is 'light fast', and they can then comfortably describe the work in their public catalogue simply as "inkjet print". But I would be willing to bet that the complete/back-office/not-public catalogue will include as much information about materials as possible, along with the rest of the provenience info
But it is a different situation with an photographer selling prints on a website, or in a gallery. In that situation the buyer surely needs more information then just 'inkjet print'? There is no question that I can make a 'inkjet print' using cheap ink and acid-rich paper. Materials that will degrade quickly even if stored in an archival box in a climate controlled environment.
So I would argue that in the case of inkjet prints it is important to have a proper descriptive nomenclature.
And the point of my original post is that there is currently no universally accepted term.
Maybe 'archival quality' is more accurate then 'archival'?
My current practice is to suggest to clients that the general description is something like "pigment ink on cotton rag" and then to include a Certificate of Authenticity that includes brand name (i.e "archival pigment ink on Hahnemuehle Museum Etching").
I wonder when, if ever, there will be a internationally accepted descriptive nomenclature?