I know what the individual CAT scores are as you've helpfully sent me a breakdown. Broadly speaking (!) I think one is a bit lower than I personally would like to see, one seems to be to be borderline, and one looks exceptionally good!
As far as I can tell, KS2 levels should be fine (based on what you've told me).
There aren't many authorities that publish this sort of information, but if you look at Bucks (which is not
a superselective area): http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeal ... aneous#e29scroll down to (f)
you'll see that with a 4% shortfall (116), the chance of a successful appeal in 2010 was roughly 23%. If you then ask me to take into account all the evidence you mentioned, I would hazard a guess that the chances of your being within that 23% would have been quite reasonable - depending on the rest of your case!
With a 9% shortfall (110), the chances of success were around 15%. Taking into account your evidence, I'm much more doubtful in this instance - unless there had been exceptional extenuating circumstances.
Those are just examples from Bucks, focusing on non-qualification only, and making a subjective judgement about how a panel might have viewed your case.
If it's a superselective you're appealing for, bear in mind that the more competitive entry is, the higher their expectations might be.
It all depends on what your particular panel will be looking for.
If you haven't done so already, it would be worth enquiring about the success rate for appeals in recent years to give you some sort of a clue as to what the standard might be - if the failure rate is consistently around 100%, you'll have your answer!http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/appeals/general#a39
but the figures you get (unlike Bucks) will
reflect other factors such as the oversubscription part of the case.
All I can really say is - if you're not sure what to do, you'll have to appeal to find out whether it was a good idea to proceed!