If we're calling warriors Angels and the protectives Guardian Angels, that kind of smacks of unnecessary redundancy and causes unnecessary confusion. We could call one Warrior Angels and one Guardian Angels, but that would imply a relationship between them, and the existence of other kinds of angels. Then we're back to the proliferation of outsider creatures that 4e is trying to cut back on.
Or, here's a good idea: Why not call one of them 'Archons'?
I'll bite. What does Archon mean? What out of its various meanings make it a better fit for a race of good-aligned outsiders than elemental warriors?
The gnostic history is the best case. They're another word for "angels" or "demons" or "devils" or "asuras" or "devas" or "daemons" or "demodands." In other words, all things that are of the unseen world of the gods. Specifically, in the gnostic worldview, they're servants of the Creator God, but they're the same thing as any of these. These fiery humanoids aren't any kind of servants to any higher being. They might be forced into servitude by their creator, but even there the article even points out that they specifically are not compelled to do it. They aren't servants, especially not of some deific creature.
But the gnostic history isn't the only case. The term in general echoes the Greek from which it comes as a nobility, as a high-rank, as something higher up the chain than you. This all implies creatures from a higher plane of existence. A created race (like these new monsters) are quite obviously NOT higher up on the scale of thinigs. They must be lower -- we've created them. Of course, even that might be workable, if the creatures held immense, nearly-godlike power, but the examples were all under CR 10. If their place in 4e remains about the same, we have adventurers "higher up" than them at a very early point in the game.
To add to the term's weight, the Greek origins fit firmly in the scale developed by Pseudo-Dionysus, where names like "Dominions," "Thrones," and "Principalities" are thrown around. "Archon," in the sense that it means "Ruler" matches with the meanings of these phrases as well. These cinderkin aren't associated with nobility and they aren't associated with power, and they aren't associated with beings like angels and demons and devas and asuras, but the word "Archon" IS.
"Archon" is obviously a good alternate name for "Angels." It would work in other ways, too, but using it for a caste of warrior-celestials is about as accuate as using "dragon" to mean "magical skittle-lizards of the elements," so it pretty much passes the D&D litmus test for "Does it make sense to call it this?"
Now, the cinderkin could be called "Archons" under the right circumstances. For instance, armored beings of flame that serve the gods as warriors? PERFECT. But that's not what they are. They're Frankenstein Elementals. Which is neat, but it's not an Archon. Archon isn't a very narrow term, it could accomodate a lot. This is not something it can easily accomodate without just being "neat-sounding gobbledeygook." Which, judging by what the article said, was pretty much the criteria for them being called "archons."
I think, quite possibly, the Gnostic idea was the source inspiration for the original Archons. However, unfortunately this idea was never really pushed in the game. The idea was taken, and the creatures became servants of good with no real background. So unfortunately a cool idea got turned into simply "Dog headed celestials."
...
So all we're really loosing is a dog headed thing dog headed for a reason lost to gamers sometime long ago, but we're gaining a creature with a purpose and a myth closer to the inspirational source.
This is missing the point that it's not about the specific dog-headed celestial. I can see a place for Hound Archons, but they were one creature out of a pretty large host, most of which did not have animal features. They didn't have much background or traction as a race, but that's the kind of thing that new editions fix all the time, so the question would be "how do we make them kick more butt?" So drop the dog head if people have problems with it. I don't care. What I do care about is keeping alive D&D's grand tradition of mythological cherry-picking and reference to human legend throughout the ages. Archons as warrior-angels preserved that. Archons as Elemental Frankenstein doesn't.
The new creature is cool, but it doesn't really make sense to call it an "Archon" in any sense of the term, either as an angel-equivalent, as an agent of deception a la gnosticism, or as any kind of leader or ruler or higher-ranked individual.
It makes about as much sense as calling halflings jedi because "jedi" sounds cool and "halfling" doesn't. Halflings don't have anything to do with anything that jedi are. These Frankenstein Elementals don't have anything to do with anything that "archons" have ever been. Angelic warriors, however, would. That's why it suits angelic warriors better than frankenstein elementals.
