I've come across this wonderful article touching on the subject of replacing engineering technical diagrams with fluffy ones. Or, as the author calls them, masala diagrams.

Why masala? Because they are informal; they cover multiple dimensions at once, they may be both structural and behavioural, logical and physical. They are often a mishmash of the 4+1 architectural model’s views.My customers and peers not only keep asking for more masala diagrams, but they also insist that I make them even more masala (that I merge more architectural dimensions in them!) 

While sometimes these diagrams help to articulate 10,000 ft views to high-ranking stakeholders, I resist using just these diagrams and agile epic stories to convey solution details because it leads to unpredictable results most of the times. And as producing detailed UML diagrams for every aspect of the solution may be an overkill, some low level technically accurate details is required most of the times. This is especially true for sequence and system interaction diagrams, where it is clear which system is initiating connections, which protocol is used, whether it is a real time or a batch call.

As always, delivering a fit for purpose outcome is the key.