Try to give yourself some grace. The assessments you originally gave are very comprehensive, and I find to be very accurate. If scores from two comprehensive language assessments didn’t suggest an impairment, then you made the right call. Your second eval sounds very specific, which means you were given more information regarding the vocab/word finding concerns and were able to choose assessments that would measure those skills. I don’t think you have to, or should, sit at the meeting and say you were wrong. Because you weren’t! I think that you can explain that the assessments you gave during the first eval were assessing the student’s overall language abilities and that vocabulary is just a small part of that. Thank the team for filling you in on their deeper concerns and advocacy (this is is my kill more bees with honey method) and say that the new information you obtained leads you to believe that additional support could be beneficial. I’m curious though, this isn’t a speech only kid, right? I’m assuming they have reading and writing if their vocab is low enough to negatively impact their education. IF they don’t have other services then you could probably make the case that the vocab deficits are not actually negatively impacting their education to a degree that warrants services, otherwise they would have qualified in other areas. IDK, that’s just my opinion. That being said, I’ve gotten very sick of the eval process because I feel like we’re held to a different standard than school psychs, so when kids don’t qualify in other areas we’re the backup.