The additional information about tracking and convergence does clarify her reading situation. However, her spelling gap still suggests compensated dyslexia.
The block-building exercise done by the OT does not rule out EF deficits, firstly, because it was a very limited, non-standardized sample (mainly of visual-spatial problem-solving), incidentally addressing aspects of planning ability, not a comprehensive measure of EF, which consists of several distinct dimensions. Oh, and secondly, because OTs are generally not qualified to conduct comprehensive assessments of EF. So actually, it says very little one way or the other about her executive functions.
For good EF evaluation, better assessment instruments might include the D-KEFS or NEPSY-II, WRAML-2, RCFT, or rating scales like the BRIEF-2 or CEFI. And generally, it would be conducted by a psychologist (neuro, clinical, or school).
On the OLSAT, I am not all that surprised that she was able to complete it quickly, as it is entirely multiple choice, which takes away most of the fine-motor speed and retrieval efficiency factors that may affect processing speed. In fact, if we postulate that her processing speed is a signal of deficits in planning, organization, and retrieval fluency, the format of the OLSAT essentially accommodates for most of them, as no new responses must be generated. Planning and organization are accounted for in the highly-structured, standardized format, and retrieval is supported by the multiple-choice format, which allows for recruiting recognition skills to support free recall skills. Plays to her strengths, and masks her weaknesses, in other words.
