Examiners can use some clinical judgment when using extended norms. The rule of thumb is supposed to be two or more subtests in a cluster that reach the maximum standard subtests score. Which may be 18 or 19 depending on the age of the child and the subtests. So technically, 19s on two verbal subtests should have triggered extended norms, but it may be that recalculating using EN didn't result in a significant difference (if, as was suggested, she obtained few raw score points beyond the top scaled score), so she left it as standard norms.
The matrix reasoning score was sufficiently far above the standard norms that the examiner appears to have felt it was valuable information to report.
