So here's a little more detail:
The correlation between cognitive and achievement instruments is typically between about .5 and .6, so as a ballpark, we would expect a composite of 152 to generate an achievement measure of about 130ish--and that happens to be almost exactly what his math measure is. In his case, there's a pretty marked difference between his verbal cognition and his nonverbal/quantitative cognitive measures, which suggests that he might have a nonverbal/mathematical preference (not that 132 is exactly low!). So while the 89th %ile score he has in reading is toward the periphery of the standard error range for his global cognition, it's pretty much a perfect match for his verbal score on the CogAT.
You may be wondering why I'm using the national percentiles and not the local percentiles, which look much more divergent. That's because the CogAT numbers you posted are almost certainly national numbers, so I'm just comparing apples to apples. It appears that your district is particularly high achieving, given that the average student is about a standard deviation above the national average, which may be clouding the picture when you consider your own child's profile.
In short: I would not worry at this moment about an unidentified learning disability. A tilted profile at this level of global strength is not necessarily a disability, and he is objectively ahead normatively in every assessed area (vs the general population, not your local pocket of brilliance). I think afterschooling in math is plenty. You are monitoring his progress and making decisions based on his overall development, health and happiness. That is all any of us can do. Take a deep breath, mama, you are doing fine!
