Thanks. Are you saying that Foliolink as the "Flash translator" needs to do do something under the hood to its Flash templates in order for the color management capability to be turned on.
Yes. Either that or you need to be able to modify the Flash files yourself. I'm not enough of a Flash person to tell you although there are some details in the Nack article. It looks to me like the change needs to be made before the SWF file is compiled. Once compiled, it's too late to make the change. If Foliolink gives you compiled Flash files, you are probably out of luck unless you can convince them to update their software. Are you even sure that Foliolink is making the Flash using Flash 10? If not, you're dead right there. Perhaps a Flash expert can chime in and/or correct me.
I wonder why this appears to be a problem with images that are viewed on a wide gamut monitor where the images were edited in a wide gamut working space on a wide gamut monitor before conversion to sRGB.
If you are doing everything correctly in your color-managed workflow, the only people that are going to see your Flash gallery really bad and over-saturated is you and anybody else with a wide-gamut monitor. Folks with standard monitors will see the gallery more-or-less OK (and you pretty much confirmed this with your work monitor).
The problem is NOT creation, you are creating to the sRGB standard colorspace.
The problem IS viewing. People with wide-gamut monitors need color-managed applications to see the colors properly. If the application (in this case, Flash) is not color-managed, then the colors will be off for those people.
The same problem exists for someone viewing your sRGB images in HTML in a non-color-managed browser (like Internet Explorer).
Wide-gamut monitors are great but the software has some catching up to do (adding color management), particularly where viewing and web applications are concerned.