Welcome!
First of all, these are nicely strong scores all around, confirming, I'm guessing, your suspicions that you have a bright little person on your hands!
Secondly, yes, there are some statistically quite divergent index scores. We can talk about some of the hypotheses these might generate, but it's important to remember that there's a huge difference between statistical significance and clinical significance---and functional significance. I've had many students whose function in life is much stronger (or weaker) than their formal testing would predict.
And now to these diverse scores:
Context: 1, none of them are below average, so we're already starting from relative strengths and weaknesses, rather than absolute weaknesses. 2, your child is still quite young, so some level of instability in scores is still expected over the next few years, for reasons including variable testability of young children, and the wide range of asynchronous development that is typical of children in the preschool years--so don't be surprised if some regression to the mean occurs on future rounds of evaluation (high scores become a bit less high, and low scores become a bit less low, with everything trending closer to average than otherwise).
Since variable attention and effort is pretty common in preschoolers, I should also note that any relatively lower performance could have resulted from that, which is something that only someone who actually saw him complete the test would have any idea about. So keep in mind that the discussion following assumes that these test scores are actually representative of true skills, rather than just because DC was tired, hungry, or distracted by a fly in the room.
Strengths: your DC has several areas which are well above average, but the strongest by far is language-based thinking, which is in what most would consider to be the profoundly/exceptionally gifted range. The visual spatial area is also in the technically GT range, but results from two very different performances--one at the top of the Extremely High/GT range, and the other in the High Average range. Since fine-motor development is one of the areas that often is on a time-table different from some other aspects of cognitive development, it's possible that slightly different fine-motor coordination demands on these two tasks affected how he performed. The other large difference between the two is that BD has a model (3d or 2d), while OA does not. So the problem solving process is a bit different organizationally between the two. It appears that the conditions for BD are a lot more conducive to success for your child than those for OA.
Fluid reasoning is strong without being nominally GT. (Some call this the optimally gifted range, since it's plenty cognition enough to do almost anything one wants in life, and can be the sweet spot in many classrooms for being the top student without constant frustration over lack of challenge.) FR is a pretty good predictor of conceptual thinking and some aspects of mathematics achievement.
Relative weaknesses: The two areas that aren't striking strengths both fall into a larger domain called cognitive proficiency, which has to do with how efficiently one can manage tasks and produce a volume of work. They are sometimes considered lower-level cognitive skills, because they have less to do with abstraction and conceptual thinking, but they can still have quite a bit of impact on how smooth and fluent the learning experience is. It's also not unusual for GT learners to be "only" age-appropriate in these areas, both because people are internally diverse, and because sometimes it's not a priority.
So interpretively, these might be completely unremarkable findings, since a fairly high percentage of GT-identified students have working memory and processing speed in this range, and don't seem to have any noticeable effects, plus or minus, from it.
Or they might be notable, but result from asynchronous development (e.g., just because one's reasoning development is far ahead, doesn't mean one is any better than the next preschooler at holding a pencil).
And finally, it's still possible that there is some IRL meaning to these, such as a delay or deficit in visual tracking, or auditory processing, or something else.
Do you have any IRL concerns about your child? What prompted (if you don't mind my asking) the original evaluation? Was it a problem or question that might shed light on the resulting scores?
