I'll answer the last, clerical question first: There are no scores for the Written Expression composite because they did not administer Sentence Composition and Essay Composition, which are required to compute that composite. This is because the structure and nature of those tasks would duplicate those in the TOWL-4. That category of information is encompassed in the TOWL composite and subtest scores, specifically in the Sentence Combining subtest and the Spontaneous Writing composite.
It is true that there are no measures below the average range, on any reported component of the evaluation (which is likely why the finding was of no learning disability). It is also true that some of the weakest skill areas are quite divergent from the highest skill areas
In general, his pattern of relative weaknesses is in all timed tasks, not only speeded fine motor-involved tasks, but also tasks requiring no hand skills (oral reading fluency). Writing speed for both words and letters is at the low end of the Average range, as is oral reading speed. No math fluency, so we don't know about rate when writing math facts. Untimed measures are all at least in the upper quartile, with math, of course, exceptionally high, and the following other exceptions:
Writing mechanics are consistently in the Average range, with one of the measures of spelling bordering on Below Average.
Extended spontaneous writing is at the bottom of the Average range, fully a standard deviation below overall contrived writing, and up to nearly two standard deviations between specific spontaneous and contrived writing tasks (story composition vs vocabulary, sentence combining). Without the protocol in front of me, I can't say for sure, but among the questions I would have would be: How did his story compare in length with others his age (even anecdotally)? Did he use a comparable amount of the time allowed for the story, vs others his age? Were there relevant clinical observations (such as stopping frequently to shake out his hand, complaints about hand pain or fatigue, going back to correct, revise, or scratch out work, expressions of frustration, qualitative changes in legibility for short versus long writing samples, etc.)?
On the two tests from the WJ that you mention: both are in fact in the Average range, albeit the lower end thereof. The first is timed, so no shocker there. The second is harder to interpret in isolation, but it's a contextualized memory task, using narratives. Given that he's obviously a math kid, it may just not have fit his learning preferences. Another possibility: sometimes it's associated with weaker auditory working memory (phonological memory), which does have some relationship to dyslexia/dysgraphia.
It is notable that his reading accuracy falls that much on the fluency task, when reading in connected text, as compared to in isolation, at the word level. All in all, there are several pieces of data that are consistent with global weaknesses in automaticity (which we've discussed elsewhere as one of the core deficits that can result in both dyslexia and dysgraphia). The impact on applied skills, however, appears to be noteworthy only in written expression.
Given that he has cognitive scores largely in the Superior and above ranges, the Story Composition and Spelling scores (both of them) would typically be considered discrepantly low. Despite being in the Average range. As would all of the Automatic Legibility measures (which are in the Low Average range).
So one of the reasonable interpretations of the data would include something on the dysgraphic spectrum. Where a district places the functional cutoff for Specific Learning Disability-Written Expression vs student-with-dysgraphic-tendencies is another question altogether.
