The chart seems useless; e.g.,
- Does it distinguish class from class, or individual from individual ? Well, is archangel a class, or is it an individual ? Since this is more or less what we are trying to find out, we are in danger of entering the fruitlessly incoherent realm of circular reasoning.
But let's say that we will choose option (b), in the understanding that archangels, whether one or many, are to be distinguished from the rest of angels, assuming they are angels to begin with. Even so, we still ultimately arrive at
- Is the person or thing the only one of a class ? Again, what class, angels, or archangels ? If the former, no; if the latter, no idea (see above).
Let's say we'll choose no, ultimately for the same as before; then we hit another brick wall with
- Is the noun an abstract quality ? Dude, I have no earthly clue (no pun intended).
At any rate, Jude quotes Enoch, so your answer might lie there... or not. (How's your Ge'ez, by the way ?).
Within the Greek Septuagint (since Jude, along with the rest of the New Testament, was written in the same language), penned by Hellenistic Judaism, there are three named angels: Michael, Gabriel, and Rafael. The former is presented as a prince (Daniel 10 & 12, Revelation 12), the middle as a messenger (Daniel 8 & 9, Luke 1), and the latter as a healer (Tobit). Basically, every (human) army has generals (leading the army into battle), emissaries (to help ensure communication with one's allies & enemies), and field doctors (to heal the sick or wounded soldiers). The same, then, in a spiritual sense, also seems to apply to the heavenly armies of angels as well. So, based on this perspective, I would assume that Michael is indeed the only prince or arche of angels; or, in other words, the only archangel, properly speaking; but, of course, this still does not constitute, technically speaking, an answer to your actual question.