I find this article fundamentally confused. The author spends a lot of time talking about what he invisions a senior engineer ought to be in his opinion (which involves all kinds of ownership). But senior engineer is just a title, it can't be used wrongly, because it's inherently a meaningless cat-and-mouse money game between employees and companies. It's politics; it's a name.

Much in the same way that somebody founding a startup can be "engineer" or "CTO" or "Software king Ninja Level 7 dan grandmaster." Titles will never be objectively consistent, this is why the whole industry is now discussing consistent interviews instead hiring based on titles on resumes.