I can't comment knowledgeably, sorry, except to say that there is a concept known as the 'standard error of measurement'. You can google it if you wish. Essentially, there will be natural and expected variance in derived results/scores/assessments with each measurement due to operator error, operator variances in technique (different schools, different supervisors with biases ordering certain ways of doing things), instrument variances in calibration and in engineering, and even variances in the interpretation of the data between 'raters', or what they call inter-rater reliability (will two or more specialists looking at the same results arrive at the same conclusions? Nope, not by a long shot! Hence the wisdom of seeking multiple opinions, especially where the stakes are large).

What I am saying is that those results don't vary by a wide margin, so I don't think you should necessarily take them as a sign of progression or worsening. They MAY BE truly a sign of that, but not necessarily. You would want a third reading to show that its very close to the last one or that it's even worse....or marginally better. With that knowledge, what should you make of the third result? So, you should seek a second opinion at least, look for highly similar results in any data derived, and then form an action plan based on a firm consensus over the data.