Welcome!
It might be easier to get a good picture with a more complete set of data, as the composites you've shared appear to have some diverse scores inside them (e.g., with a PSI of 70, the FSIQ of 93 is probably not fully communicating what your strengths might be; the other index scores might help (VCI, PRI, WMI), and possibly even the subtest scores, if there were disparities within indices). You do also have a very wide range of academic achievement scores, from average all the way up to the upper extreme. If you feel comfortable posting a few more elements, we might be able to give some more feedback. If you'd rather not publically, I would be happy to share some thoughts via pm.
And as a general note, of course one should be somewhat cautious about interpreting results obtained by a trainee, depending on where they are in their training, and how closely they were supervised. (At an accredited institution, they would have to be at least a graduate student, if not a post-grad, to give the assessments you've listed.)
But a couple of thoughts here first: Big picture, you have no academic scores that are remotely below average, so that's good. That's probably also why you were told you have no notable issues.
You describe a history of difficulty with math, yet your actual assessed math skills are extremely strong, particularly in computational skills--which is the opposite of how you experience math. You report more success with concepts and higher-order math, and difficulty with procedures and facts, but your actual testing appears to demonstrate strong facility with procedures and facts, and (presumably) weaker concepts and applications. (I gather the latter from how much lower your Mathematics composite is than your Math Calculation Skills composite. The difference between them is that the former includes concepts and applications (Applied Problems), and the latter includes Fluency. Broad Mathematics is higher because it has all three.)
Which brings up another curious thing: the cognitive testing suggests low processing speed, but your actual academic fluency skills appear to be average to very strong (overall in the high average range, with math fluency in the extremely high range). Reading fluency was average, and presumably writing fluency was at least average, given that all of your subtests were 100+.
I will say that it appears you have exceptionally strong writing skills, which might also be why you experience math as a weakness; in contrast, it is, even though it's technically within normal limits.
Anyway, all of these inconsistent results are why it might be difficult to interpret your performance solely from the scores you've reported, especially if there were no other factors that might have impacted performance (e.g., fatigue, fluctuating attention, anxiety, examiner factors). But to answer your question in short, yes, it is possible that there is some twice exceptionality here.
