Templates define which assessments and report sections the report expects. Picking the right one shapes the structure of the final report.
Upload a report you authored. Soma matches its structure, sections, length, table and bullet use, tone, and voice — so the output comes out shaped the way you write.
Pick a template first.
Use an alias, never a client’s name.
PDF, DOCX, TXT, or images (PNG, JPG). Uploading opens the progress view.
Fetching the file… Reading the pages… Reading score tables… Final privacy check…
A document we can't read scores from still reaches the report as text — nothing is dropped.
Nothing reaches a model until you review what was covered and approve it.
This is exactly what the report is written from — the de-identified text, nothing else.
[CLIENT] is a 34-year-old adult referred by [REFERRER] for a psychoeducational assessment of long-standing attention and executive-functioning difficulties. [CLIENT] reports lifelong challenges sustaining attention on effortful work, following through on multi-step tasks, and managing time and deadlines. The referral questions include whether a specific learning disorder is present, whether an attention-related presentation better accounts for the difficulties, and which accommodations and supports are recommended.
Clinical interview and behavioural observation; review of available medical records. The following instruments were administered to assess learning and memory across verbal and visual modalities.
| Domain | Instrument |
|---|---|
| Verbal learning and memory | word-list recall measures |
| Visual learning and memory | visual recall measure |
| Attention and processing speed | timed attention measures |
History was gathered from the clinical interview and the records provided. Developmental milestones were reported as age-typical, with no significant medical history and normal vision and hearing. [CLIENT] described consistent academic difficulty from the middle grades onward, with written work taking far longer than peers despite strong class participation. A first-degree relative carries an attention-related diagnosis. [CLIENT] is currently employed full-time and reports that deadline-heavy periods are the most difficult.
[CLIENT] arrived on time and engaged warmly with the examiner. Attention was adequate across shorter tasks, with visible fatigue and self-corrected drift on longer timed measures. Effort and persistence were strong throughout, and standardized procedures were followed. The current results are considered a valid and reliable estimate of [CLIENT]’s functioning.
Overall cognitive ability fell within the average range (standard score 104, 61st percentile, 95% CI 99–109). Verbal reasoning emerged as a relative strength (82nd percentile), while working memory (27th percentile) and processing speed (21st percentile) fell at the lower end of the average range. The difference between verbal reasoning and processing speed was statistically significant and uncommon — a pattern consistent with the reported difficulty translating strong ideas into finished written work.
Reading and mathematics fell within expectations for age and ability. Written expression fell below expectations (standard score 84, 14th percentile), with spelling intact; the gap between predicted and obtained written-expression scores was statistically significant. In practical terms, [CLIENT] produces accurate but markedly slow written output, which mirrors the presenting concern.
Rating forms were valid and interpretable across raters. Inattention scales were elevated for both self-report (T = 71, Elevated) and collateral report (T = 68, Elevated), while hyperactivity-impulsivity scales fell within the average range for both raters. This cross-rater convergence, together with the working-memory and processing-speed findings above, is consistent with a predominantly inattentive presentation; organization and time management were the areas most affected day to day.
Validity indices were acceptable across forms. Mild performance-related worry was reported (T = 62, At-Risk), concentrated around deadlines and evaluative settings; mood and broader screening scales were otherwise unremarkable, and no critical items were endorsed.
Adaptive functioning was age-typical per self- and collateral report, with independent management of household, financial, and occupational demands. Social functioning was described as a strength and a reliable source of support.
Taken together, the history, observations, cognitive profile, academic results, and multi-rater scales converge on a consistent picture: average-to-strong reasoning alongside specific weaknesses in working memory, processing speed, and written output, with elevated inattention across settings. The findings above are integrated into a working formulation for the clinician’s review; all diagnostic decisions remain the clinician’s.
Structured deadline scaffolding for multi-step projects and a distraction-managed workspace for sustained writing are recommended. Extended time on written tasks is recommended. Review the accommodations at the next annual meeting. Follow-up review is recommended in twelve months to monitor response to the supports above.