Possible empirical evidence for the LTV

So, I've been reading Anwar Shaikh's Capitalism: Competition, Crises, Conflict, and very early on (page 69) I encountered a section called Relative Prices. I'll quote (the first two paragraphs are explanatory and set the context, the last paragraph is where the empirical evidence comes in):

The price of any commodity can be represented as the product of two distinct elements. The first of these is the vertically integrated unit labor cost associated with the production of this commodity (Sraffa 1960, appendix A; Pasinetti 1965; Kurz and Salvadori 1995, 85, 168-169, 178). This is the sum of the unit labor costs of the industry producing the commodity in question, plus the unit labor costs of the set of industries producing inputs (raw materials, etc.) of this particular industry, plus the unit labor costs of the industries producing the inputs for the industries producing inputs, and so on. Vertical integration in this (analytical) sense captures the total industrial labor cost of producing a given commodity. The second element is the vertically integrated ratio of profits to wages associated with the same industry. This is a weighted average of the profit-wage ratio in the industry producing the commodity, plus the profit-wage ratio in the set of industries producing the inputs, plus the profit-wage ratio in the set of industries producing the inputs for the inputs, and so on. (7)

Adam Smith was the first one to make this decomposition, by means of a verbal argument. It is quite easy to reproduce analytically (once a great thinker has already shown the way). David Ricardo subsequently used a similar mode of reasoning to argue that the relative prices of any two commodities would be dominated by the ratio of their vertically integrated unit labor costs. His upper limit for the influence of the remaining element was 7%. Thus, on his estimation, relative vertically integrated unit labor costs would be expected to account for at least 93% of the inter-industrial structure of relative prices. With only a few notable exceptions (Schwartz 1961, 42-44), this "93% Theory of Price" has been long derided by modern economists on theoretical grounds.

It is always illuminating to look at the actual empirical evidence. Figure 2.14 displays the relation between observed market prices and prices proportional to vertically integrated unit labor costs (direct prices), for each of the seventy-one sectors of the US input-output table for 1972. The vertical axis represents the market value of each sector's total output (i.e., its unit market price times its total output), while the horizontal axis represents the corresponding direct money value for the same outputs. The two sets of prices are scaled so that they have the same total. Also displayed on the chart is 45-degree line, for purposes of visual comparison. From 1947 to 1998 the average absolute deviation of observed market prices with the respect to direct prices is 15.4%. But Ricardo's concern was with the long-run competitive prices, not market prices, and for the actual rate of profit in each the average deviation of competitive prices from direct prices is 13.2% (chapter 9, tables 9.9 and 9.13). To put it in Ricardian terms, about 87% of the inter-industrial structure of long run competitive prices is accounted for by direct and indirect unit labor costs.

It goes on to say that this will be expanded upon more in chapter 9, which I haven't gotten to yet. But this passage had really excited me. Am I over reaching by believing that this is evidence of the LTV?

I will upload photos of the tables mentioned soon!