Welcome!
The assessments you report do appear to be consistent with a learner with very high potential in verbal reasoning, strong fluid reasoning, slightly lower but still good visual spatial skills, and low efficiency. There is a fair amount of diversity in her achievement scores, with her math reasoning and basic word calling skills falling at levels generally commensurate with highest estimates of her ability, but reading comprehension and math calculations well below personal expectations. If the OT came up with recommendations for intervention, that would obviously be the first place to start, but I would consider also looking into other profiles that have difficulty with "sitting still and doing worksheets", such as ADHD.
While processing speed/timed tasks are clearly a personal area of vulnerability, there are other outlier scores that are not associated with timing. Block Design and Coding are timed (and, yes, among her lower scores--though BD isn't far off Matrix Reasoning, so I wouldn't consider it truly low in comparison with her other scores. Also, it's in the High Average range, bordering on Very High.). But other personal weaknesses aren't, such as Passage Comprehension and Calculation. Calculation has motor components, so that might be its connection with Coding (and maybe, to a lesser extent, with Block Design), but not with Passage Comprehension. The only real connection PC has with the other relative low areas is sustained attention, which also affects speed.
Depending on your state, achievement scores that are at least average may be a tough sell for special education supports. However, given the OT results, you may be able to argue for 504 accommodations, preferably, in this case, ones for addressing her speed of work completion, such as:
1. reduced workload/items sufficient to demonstrate mastery. This responds to her personal weaknesses in processing speed, and might also contribute to accessing more advanced math. At a minimum, it would spare her from some of the repetition, if her current instruction is truly repetitious.
2. oral assessment/elaboration. For certain learners, whose minds work more quickly than their hands do, this can allow teachers to see a fuller representation of the student's true breadth of knowledge and depth of comprehension. In her case, there is an absurd discrepancy between her assessed oral language comprehension (150) and text-based language comprehension (91). (just shy of four standard deviations)
3. I would have loved to see some assessment of phonetic decoding skills and phonological processing, to see if possibly she might not be decoding efficiently (you would know better if there are any IRL concerns with her reading). She's a bit young yet for measures of oral reading fluency, but that would be another area to investigate at some point, given the moderate distance between her word calling and reading comprehension scores. Along the same lines, how is her spelling and writing (including handwriting)?
