I think perhaps different LAs give different impressions.
I personally feel that it is insufficient to give the DLA form as evidence for the following reasons:
DLA is about 'care needs'. It is about the things that a child needs to function throught the day and/or night.
A Statutory Assessment is an assessment of 'Educational needs'.
Whilst the two can and often do overlap, they are not completely aligned.
It does matter what you write, and you can only be treated as equal to the experts if you approach it with the same attitude, in my opinion.
You can sway the person reviewing the evidence hugely, and it doesn't have to be overt. For example, in DD1's case, every single professional had assumed that while SS would be beneficial, it was unlikely that a child as verbal as DD1 would get a place. Therefore, they all swayed their reports to indicate a high level of 1:1 needed in MS school. None of them thought she would get the much more expensive but more suited Special School placement.
I however, was unsure. I thought perhaps SS would be better, but would accept MS school if they gave 1:1 from the minute she entered the classroom to the minute I picked her up.
I emphasised all the areas which could be a Health and Safety risk either to my child or other children. I didn't say that was what I was doing, but even questions such as 'what is your child good at' I took as an opportunity to say something upbeat and positive, but with a really negative undercurrent. For example "DD1 really enjoys gluing and it is the one thing that will keep her attention. However, the pretty items to glue with are very tempting for her, and she often can't resist exploring them with her mouth!" overt message is 'she loves this activity!!!' covert message 'choking hazard, watch at all times'.
The result for us, was that despite all reports from professionals saying 'MS with 1:1 (the cheaper option by far) the LA decision maker decided that all of the reports together, including mine, pointed at Special School being the more suitable setting.
My advice is that this is your one shot to get it right. If you end up in tribunal, you want, surely, to be proud of your efforts to give information, and for the LA to have to squirm that they had ignored salient information. If you just send them a half-hearted bunch of indirectly relevant information, they can say 'well the information from the child's parents wasn't too clear'.