Percentiles bug me because we tend to be a bit wired to think about completion and school grade percentages which mean completely different things than percentiles which place a score within a population. 69% means she scored better than 69% of the other kids her age who took that section of the test.
When you translate 69% to a standard score, you get: 108
Trnaslating 97% to standard you get: 128
and 99% to 135
Functionally, it would mean she has more aptitude for language and quantitative reasoning than for visual and spatial reasoning. Does that match your own observations?
A compounding factor would be if there is an early learning effect, like if she started doing math and reading earlier due to instruction, those scores could be bumped up some particularly at that age. It seems far less common for kids to get direct instruction in nonverbal skills. That is one reason some places use nonverbal alone as a theoretically more socio-economic fair measure.
My DS had an IQ test at 6.11 and skewed similarly with high scores in verbal and quantitative areas and lower scores across the board for nonverbal skills. He has a vision problem that was actively being corrected at the time and seems to have had lasting effects on visual interpretation and searching and a few other areas. But his internal visualization skills are more developed than he can demonstrate in a test. So, if those results don't match your instincts I'd definitely look at having good vision testing; if we had realized to check, we would've easily spotted DS' issue ourselves by just having him cover his left eye and try to do anything with his right eye alone.
