I think despite the presentation this has some good ideas in it:

1. Formally calling out a concept for judgment-based skills that cannot be easily taught. I think everybody understands this, but having a word for this would be useful.

2. Opening up the conversation on the topic of which types of skills can/should be codified and how.

That said, everything else in the article is suss. "Dimensionality" is largely a distraction to try to sound smart, most of the claims in the article are unwarranted (e.g. processes & checklists can be great, even for disciplines with true experts like airline pilots).

For example saying that skill learning cannot be accelerated is just patently false in many domains -- take something like learning chess. If you have a coach and other tools you'll learn a LOT faster. But certainly I've worked places that wished they could automate away reliance on experts because it gives organization power to a few non-management individuals.