Mike Sussman wrote the IaMD bio as an easter egg for OCD fans who recorded, paused, zoomed in and had HD. Bad Robot wrote an easter egg into the dialogue for Enterprise fans to pick up on (and they are on record saying it's meant to be the guy from Enterprise. Scott Bakula assumed it was meant to be him, too)
So.... what's more binding? Dialogue or an unintelligible screen graphic?
That's a contradictory argument. What the filmmakers said offscreen and what Mike Sussman wrote offscreen are of exactly equal canon value, i.e. none. They both come from producers and they're both offscreen information, so it makes no sense to treat one as more authoritative than the other.
In terms of onscreen, canonical information, all we actually know
is that there is an
Admiral Archer in 2258 and that he or she owned a beagle. We have no onscreen evidence to prove that's Jonathan Archer instead of Richard Archer or Susan Archer or Takuya Huitzilopochtli Archer III. And actuarially speaking, given what we know about life expectancy in Trek, the odds of a human born in 2112 still being alive in 2258 would be staggeringly low, so it's immensely more likely to be a different person named Archer.