My thoughts:
There is a little diversity across the VCI subtests. I suspect the evaluator felt it, which may be one of the reasons she did two additional subtests, and calculated the VCI without the two lowest scores. The tasks she did the most poorly on involve the most complex receptive language. (Word reasoning does, too, but has more repetition and clarification built into the task.)
There is a lot of diversity across the PRI subtests, with, interestingly, the greatest difference between the two fluid reasoning tasks (the two concrete-perceptual tasks are quite similar to each other, and different from both fluid reasoning tasks). Hard to tell whether the picture concept result is spurious, based on her testing behavior, or illustrative of a genuine difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. I'd love to see how she would do on the new WISC-V fluid reasoning index, which is composed of matrix reasoning and the new (to the WISC) figure weights. I evaluated a young person recently who was exceptionally strong on the FRI, but average on everything else; probably would not have been identified GT (2e, actually, in this case) on the WISC-IV, but was clearly so on the WISC-V.
WMI is the only reasonably consistent cluster, but, of course, relatively weak. Good reason to investigate attention further.
The scores in PSI climb steeply in order of administration, and in the extent to which they are symbolic tasks. Can't say which of those, if either, is part of the explanation. Some children with ADHD do rather well on timed tasks, as they respond with temporarily-improved attention to the stopwatch. Kids with EF issues (such as ADHD) also are often slow to adapt to a new task set, which might result in improved performance on later items of similar tasks (i.e., timed pencil-and-paper tasks, in this case, with very similar oral directions).
