Hey Harold:
I have a couple of concerns about assumptions and/or definitions you're using in your post.

From what Jay reports and the document he provided the link for, the 8-10% represents factual knowledge, but doesn't account for other forms of knowledge. While it can be argued that a process is knowledge, I think most would agree that knowledge of that process is knowledge. As is when to use the process or how to complete it.

But no matter what you, Jay, Mr. Kelley or I think, the data is not supported, that we are aware of, by what the respondents to Mr. Kelley's question think knowledge is. What are they including in that 8-10%.

Another assumption that you seem to be making is that training is only about that 8-10%. In reality, we don't know how to compare it to what training does, but you seem to be equating it with factual knowledge. Training can teach situational knowledge (think of call center training that teaches options based upon caller responses.) Training can teach strategies (roll playing in management training). Most leadership training does very little instruction of factual knowledge.

Finally, we can't leave the argument simply at the other 92% needs something other than training. Or, informal learning is the 80% that's not training as Jay likes to say. As a lot, we learning professionals have been very good at setting up strawmen that we identify as other than what we are. But we've spent very little time figuring out where that leaves us.