I won't quote, in case you want to delete later, as this is a lot of personal information you have out there.
Firstly, your examiner definitely has some incorrect numbers in this data set. I'm going to base my remarks on the standard scores and scaled scores, when either of those do not agree with the percentiles listed, but I do need to point out that the percentiles for WISC-V subtests VP, MR, PC, DS, PS, LNS, and SS are clearly wrong, some by only a little bit, and others by a substantial amount. I've been racking my brains trying to think of what they might be instead (they don't line up with NCEs, either), but can only imagine that some typographical or formatting error entered the document you received somewhere. The WIAT-III scores look more internally-consistent (I didn't check every one, but they are at least ballpark okay, unlike the WISC).
In addition to the comments I made previously, I'll just observe that the general memory profile follows his history of verbal strengths, with auditory memory markedly stronger than visual memory. The Beery also supports the hypothesis that there may be some fine-motor or perceptual challenge.
Academic skills are best in reading, especially comprehension, with these skills generally commensurate with the most optimistic estimate of his ability, and consistent with the pattern of verbal strengths. Math is age-appropriate in reasoning, but not quite at the level expected based on his ability profile. Calculation skills (keeping in mind that these are all hand-calculated, so may be affected by fine motor skills) are at the border of average, as are spelling skills. It's possible, even likely, that calculation errors affected his math reasoning score. Written expression is well below average. This is a profile that certainly supports several of the listed diagnoses, at least with regard to SLD, and probably DCD.
If you feel strongly that this was a clinician with poor clinical skills, then you might consider having someone else (a board-certified child psychiatrist would be a good place to start) take a second look with regard to the non-academic diagnoses (you can't repeat testing, but you can have as many interviews and observations as you can get away with). Even if they come up with the same list, you may receive more practical suggestions and contextualized interpretation.
