I feel this is a difficult question to answer because it's going to come down to the meanings of words and how things are assessed - "gifted", "2e" and "area" for example. You're already drawing a distinction between emotional and behavioural advanced development on the one hand and advanced development in academic areas on the other hand, and I'm not sure how one would do that rigorously; for example, studying literature at a high level requires readiness to engage with it emotionally. These things are inherently linked in complicated ways. Similarly motor skills certainly aren't always advanced along with advanced cognitive skills, but they can easily be limiting factors in what one can achieve, whether on one's own tasks or on achievement testing. There's a tendency to cut areas down and down to exclude everything except "pure mind" and then imagine assessing that but this has its own dangers...
However, maybe one contrast I see in my DS is relevant to mention. He's average (at best) at art - he doesn't have the fine motor skills to do more-than-age-typical work, but also, I have not seen any sign that his motor skills are a limiting factor for him in art; he seems quite happy with what he can do. This is in contrast to his writing, where clearly he wishes to express much more than he can get onto paper, and gets frustrated. To me there's a significant difference between how he is in art and how he is in writing. Suppose for the sake of argument that he'd assess average in both (last year I think that would have been true, although his writing has had a spurt and it might not be true now). Then... hmm, then what? Does that make him an example of the kind you're looking for?
