NVI = 135. And there's your one point, with a few to spare.
So yes, a little bit higher than the GAI. But if you could take away fine motor speed (which, unfortunately, you cannot formally on this instrument), his nonverbal ability would be better represented by 140s than 130s, consistent with the motor- and expressive language-reduced result obtained on the CogAT.
Could you convincingly make an argument that he has stealth dyslexia, based on these results? Yes, probably. Would it make a difference in his services (and, more importantly, his life outcomes)? Probably not. At this point, his phonetic decoding skills are within normal limits for his age, and, at his age, average is already nearing adult functional levels. (NT students are expected to have acquired the foundations of all phonetic decoding skills by the end of fourth grade.) His reading comprehension (and hence access to text) is both age/grade-appropriate and consistent with his verbal cognition, although somewhat below his nonverbal cognition.
His math skills are totally on target for best estimates of his ability. Weaker fluency (which I see was not assessed) likely reflects the automaticity weaknesses that typically underlie dysgraphia, as well as simple fine motor speed deficits.
Writing is dramatically poorer than predicted by any measure. But you already knew that. I'd be interested in the breakdown of those writing scores (other than spelling, which simply reflects his average phonics skills). Does the eval report discuss how much of sentence composition was reflective of mechanics errors vs sentence structure/semantic/grammar errors? (About half the score is derived purely from spelling/capitalization/punctuation/handwriting.) How was the content of his essay? Did the examiner attempt testing of limits, say by having him orally elaborate his essay after the fact? Were there measures of oral expressive language administered? If so, how do they compare with his written expression?
Yes, he is gifted enough. Especially if you stay in his strength areas.
Believe it or not, this is not the most extreme 2e profile I have ever seen. But yes, this has to be feeding his anxiety something awful. He can think abstractly at a very high level, but can't verbalize his ideas on paper. If he can get to the point where his written output is either remediated or accommodated enough that it somewhat more accurately reflects his reasoning, I would not be surprised if the anxiety abated significantly in parallel. He probably doesn't chase math workbooks outside of school because they involve writing and a lot of rote calculations using math fact automaticity. I expect he doesn't enjoy math right now because it's mostly procedural drills. He might like logic puzzles more, or creative problem-solving. Mathy doesn't have to mean workbooks.
Whether full grade acceleration was appropriate partly depends on how much of the written expression is purely mechanical in nature, and how much is actual expressive language. I'm a little suspicious that a piece of it is actual language, given the much lower (though still High Average) VCI. If his actual oral expressive language is no higher than High Average, acceleration in written language may be pushing the limits of his zone of proximal development. OTOH, if the school is willing to split the difference between language and math skills and have him in full grade acceleration for the sake of making math SSA only one grade ahead, but then support written expression at the bottom of the grade level (or even below grade level, back to his age-matched grade, if that's his proper instructional level), then this might be an effective compromise.
GT clusters make the most sense for him only if they don't require a great deal of writing, or if his AT or other accommodations provide him sufficient access to the writing demands.
