An expert is asked a question. They know the answer. They cite the study. They reference the framework. They place the question in the relevant literature. The audience nods. The expert is doing what experts do — retrieving from a deep catalog of stored knowledge and arranging it for the question at hand. This is intellect. It works. It isn't what K meant by intelligence.
K split the two operations sharply. Intellect is the storage-and-retrieval system. Memory, categorization, comparison, analysis. It catalogs the known and applies the catalog to incoming inputs. A library has intellect. A calculator has intellect. A really good professor has a lot of intellect. None of this is intelligence. Intelligence is the operation that perceives the catalog, sees its limits, and knows when to close it.
The two operate in different domains. Intellect is excellent inside the known. Solving math problems. Citing precedent. Doing technical work. Intelligence operates at the edge of the known — where the catalog runs out, where the new shows up, where direct perception matters more than recall. A person can have enormous intellect and almost no intelligence. The intellect doesn't notice. The intelligence would.
Notice the difference in the body of someone using intellect vs intelligence. Intellect feels confident, certain, fluent. Intelligence has a quality of openness, hesitation, willingness to not know. The expert at the podium is using intellect. The person who pauses, says I'm not sure, and then looks fresh at the question — intelligence.
Intellect is the librarian, expert in the catalog. Intelligence is the perceiver, expert in where the catalog ends. Both are useful. They're not the same. K wanted you to know which one you were running.