Yes from what I understand the most straightforward understanding of Rev 3:14 is that Jesus is “the beginning of the creation of God”, i.e. the first one created. I think Hugh Schonfield has a footnote at this verse where he says that clearly the early Christians believed Jesus was a created being.
Trinitarians have a number of responses to this. As you mention, some argue that the word archē here doesn’t mean “beginning”, but “ruler”, and others “origin”. Yet the go-to scholarly Greek lexicon (known by the initials BDAG) in the latest edition says that it means “beginning” in this verse.
Other Trinitarians, who accept “beginning of the creation of God” as the correct translation, will argue that this does not refer to Jesus as the first creation of God, but refers to the “new creation” instead. I suppose this means it is acceptable for Trinitarians to describe Jesus as a creation in the context of the “new creation” but not in relation to the original creation.
There are so many verses that Trinitarians must “explain away” if they are to maintain that Jesus was not created or did not have a beginning: “he created me, the beginning of his way” (Prov 8:22); “the firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15); “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev 3:14); “I live because of the Father” (John 6:57). Another one I came across the other day while reading a book by Maurice Wiles is Hebrews 3:2. This verse seems to apply the word “made” to Jesus (see the original NWT), which is a word that later Trinitarians argued was heresy if applied to Jesus. If Jesus wasn’t created by God then you have got to wonder why so many parts of the Bible give that impression and need to be explained away in order to conform with later dogma.