Keep in mind the referral questions: did they ask for her current ability to return to a specific job? Did they ask for current work tolerances?

Depending on the referral question asked, a High Utility evaluation may have to make an estimate of ability when the individual demonstrates less than high levels of physical effort. (Keep in mind that we all self-limit). One of the most difficult issues for an evaluator to tackle is the question of estimating ability based on observed performance when an individual does not put forth high levels of effort. But if the referral source wants an estimated, you should carefully construct your findings and clearly indicate that it is an estimate.

Also keep in mind the referral sources' case resolution strategy: is this a disability case, a compliance case, a return to work case or a failure to remediate case? From what you experessed in your question, it sounds like you have some measure of ability and some observation of both non-compliance and failure to remediate.

While not taught, there is a good deal of evidence regarding Fear Avoidance Based Questionnaire and the Pain Catastrophizing scale. We use it a lot aside from the clinic but in low back pain research. It is a good tool to get used to, along with some other scales such as the Tampa Kineseophobic scale.  These scales have been invaluable in defense of our FCE findings. 

If a patient appears to be self limiting and there were no other changes in the FCE such as a biomechanical end point for the test or cardiovascular reason for ending the lifting test, and the client stops the test based on subjective reports, we whip out those scales and see how the client does.  Typically, they do very poorly on these outcomes.  We do not imply conjecture and words such as self limiting.  We note the subjective reports for ending the test, report that the reliability and consistency of their subjective reports were poor. Then, we also report that the client had very high ratings of fear avoidance, quote the research, and suggest the client may not have been participating fully in the testing because of findings. 

You also have a great way of making further recommendations, in that we are not psychologist, there are clearly psychological barriers in testing of the client, and that the particular cognitive factors are addressed.  It is important to do that, because you have no idea WHY the patient was self limiting.  Are they scared of re-injury or worsening of symptoms?  If so, it is only fair that we speak and advocate for that client to get the proper help they need.  Think ICF model that the APTA and the medical model is moving towards, with the recognition that personal, social, and environmental factors effect funciton.   Using the model gives the referral source further insight into possible reduction in function, supports your belief the client may have been able to do more, but most importantly, you are addressing the other factors that someone may not have thought of, in restoring function for the injured client.

I think the key issue here would be effort-did she provide high levels of physical effort with material handling testing?  RPDR is certainly very important, but if the client did not provide high levels of effort and there are questions regarding the RPDR's, how DO you know what her limitations are?  When you do make a statement about what was demonstrated, you might consider something like this; "The following tables list the client's demonstrated abilities.  Due to low-levels of effort findings, in combination with questions reagarding the client's reports of pain and limitation, indicate that higher abilities are possible."