Adds up.
Adds up, although I don't think it's entirely cricket to have +0 attack and having the heavily flawed alternate forms include Accurate 5 powers. Why does she lack any ability to hit things outwith her alternate forms, especially having received three years worth of training.
Adds up.
Adds up.
Adds up, with two concerns. One, we prefer feats to be listed one at a time in a list, like skills. Two, having no base attack, lots of ranks of attack focus and Accurate 5 isn't really very fair.
This adds up to 65 pp, but with a long list of concerns:
None of the flaws on her alternate forms are appropriate. With continuous duration on the alternate form the concentration check is not a flaw considering she'd never really have to exit the form, and even so, she'd have to make one check and be in that form for as long as possible. With continuous duration and innate, she can't even be stunned or nullified to force her to exit the form and return to it. The same concern applies to the full action flaw. As was recently house-ruled officially, and has been board practice for many months, action is a drawback on containers, not a flaw. So full-round would be a -3 pp drawback.
Why is her Flight Innate? It's worth noting that having it innate means there is no way for it to be drained or boosted by characters like kinetic or time controllers. Why is this? Also, why would no descriptor be able to nullify it?
I'll await an in-depth critique on the alternate forms later, as you will need to rework them, but I have a few questions upfront:
I've mentioned the Accurate 5 concern before, so I'll not repeat it. Why is the dragon not very strong for its size (it's Strength 16, something most human-level heroes will equal or exceed pretty easily), and by contrast, why do its claws and teeth do so much damage not from Strength? Also, why is it Autofire 2?
That is not a viable flaw on Charisma, as it would very rarely be used in a situation where you are not visible. An attractive appearance would be modelled using the Attractive feat.
I'm not saying this is a poor concept. I'm not, in fact, it's a pretty good one. But, the problem is in that you've executed the build of it in a way which is questionable in a lot of areas, I'm afraid.