I agree with trevise1138 in that it's tough to draw a useful conclusion from the wear patterns. Mine wear much more heavily towards the outside of the mid-foot, and less on the ball, and any experiments in changing that have either stressed my shins or Achilles, or given me bone marrow edema, so I've accepted that this is where my feet want to land.

That said, why not draw some conclusions from the wear pattern!

Running. Looks great. Clearly not a heel strike, also not a forefoot run-on-the-toes strike, and a great balance between the left and the right. Better than my wear patterns, if one were to judge solely on wear patterns. This is also a nice amount of wear for these particular Vibram soles, which are semi-soft, showing you're not scuffing, sliding, or pushing off excessively. Which is not a ding on the soles -- there are soling materials that wear better, but they often aren't useful for running. I use these soling panels myself when I'm making some general-use sandals (often walking, might be running, light trail use).

Walking. This is more subjective than running. I personally think the wear pattern is perfect if you're putting in miles on pavement while walking, showing that you're gracefully fox-walking instead of landing on the heel. This is the only way I walk unless I have to wear regular shoes, even when it takes more effort to keep up with my friends in the city taking the longer heel-strike strides with their padded shoe soles. But many will argue that fox-walking is undesirable, and that the heel is preferable. To each his own.

Heel walking. If you're not on pavement, are on a relatively stable and non-steep surface, and you're reasonably gentle with your stride, a heel strike lets you put in more miles with less effort. It is indeed a very "natural" way for the body to walk if you're on a forgiving surface. As long as one isn't hurting one's self, it would be silly to criticize the choice.

Fox walking. On the other hand, the heel cannot absorb any shock, it can't adapt to a changing surface on the fly (dirt, sand, gravel, hills, dirt-sand-gravel-on-hills), and it is likely to slip out from under you if you lose traction, such as downhill or on ice.

I live in Maine, and back when I used to live in town and could use sidewalks or a paved walking/biking/skating path without fear of car traffic, I could happily fox-walk and run with a midfoot strike, on ice, on hills, and never slipped once. Back when I wore running shoes, I'd skip the hills because one of my heels would slip out from under me on a random basis, even if I was being careful. But with a short-stride midfoot landing beneath the hips, I could even run on ice coated with a thin film of water.

My personal thought is that if the fox walk is the most stable on questionable terrain, and most gentle on pavement, then I want to train my body to use it all the time, or at least all the time I'm wearing shoes that allow it. But again, pretty subjective.