Good to hear from you again!
It's generally best not to overinterpret subtest differences... but if one were to look at the nature of the verbal tasks you've named, the main difference between Si and In/Co is that Si consists of minimal receptive language demands (two words), while In & Co both have more language comprehension requirements, as the stimuli consist of complete sentences. Consequently, it's easier not to get lost in the weeds with Si, and individuals with any kind of vulnerability in auditory attention or receptive language processing have the possibility of differences here.
Si and Co have in common that both have significant verbal reasoning dimensions to them, but Co is more social reasoning, which was more likely to be one of the skills impacted in your case, at the specific time you were assessed.
In is more affected by academic language, and thus by access to instruction and complex text. Again, disruption in access for any reason, including transient or intermittent emotional conditions, can affect performance.
So based on the nature of the tasks and on your particular history, one might speculate that some functional implications with regard to language might be,
1) higher abstract reasoning than socially-contextualized reasoning, which would look like being better with ideas than with practical applications of language.
2) stronger verbal expression than verbal comprehension, which would look like more effective expression of one's own ideas than comprehension of other people's communications.
Takeaways for the real world: it might make for more effective mutual communication to make a point of paying careful attention to the verbal expressions of others, and to use one's expressive relative strengths to ask short clarifying questions, or to reflect one's understanding of what they have said in concise restatements (e.g., "so what I hear you saying is...," "if I understand correctly..."). These practices generally help one to check for accurate comprehension in real time, rather than walking away with an inadvertant misconception. It can also help with perspective-taking and the social comprehension aspect, since it gives the conversational partner additional opportunities to add emotional nuance or illustrative details.
Also, keep in mind that most people use their verbal (or other) cognition very much in a social-emotional context, so that a conversation that feels to one like an emotionally-neutral intellectual discussion about academically-interesting ideas, may be experienced by the other as a heated argument about personal values. So it would be important to be responsive to the emotional expressions of one's conversational partner, and be prepared to back off of winning intellectual points at the expense of social-emotional costs. ("We can talk about this later, at a better time for both of us." "Let's agree to disagree.") Or work on focusing on points of consensus.
Note that we are speaking here only of relative strengths, since none of the scores you listed are remotely weak. And, again, one should be cautious about overinterpreting subtest scores, since their reliability is not as strong as that of index-level scores.
