I am not rejecting your point. I am rejecting the meaning you assign to it. Yes, the Soviets made use of Western technology, Western experts and Western research. This does not even remotely equate "90% of Soviet industry" being built with US assistance. I assume that you meant Western rather than American here, since that's what your sources refer to.

The Americans did not build 90% of Soviet industry for free, out of the kindness of their hearts. This is nonsense. If you hire a foreign company to improve the productive facilities of your country then that does technically count as "assistance", yes, but it is misleading, because we are talking about business, not about some bleeding-heart foreign aid project. You are not even considering the implications of what it would mean for the USSR to construct its industry without using Western methods in the early 20th century. We're talking about basic, vital technologies for the extraction, refinement and use of raw materials. You wouldn't even be able to build a single factory without this type of Western "assistance", because the method for producing the steel you need relies on innovations from various Western nation-states. This is why I mentioned that by this standard, you could claim that "100% of Japanese industry was built with Western assistance". Without the knowledge to produce modern roads, steel, building materials and so on the very idea of Japanese industry is inconceivable. But to say that "100% of Japanese industry was built with Western assistance" would be profoundly misleading, because the Japanese still had to organise the creation of their industry, pay for the necessary expertise, then provide the funds, materials and labour necessary to complete their projects - just like the Soviets.