can you explain what you mean by the heels? The radiographs show her to be in alignment with how her bone structure is so I would imagine lowering the heels would be more of a detriment than a benefit? Maybe i'm REALLY misunderstanding all of this. :/
Firstly, I don't quite get what 'alignment' you speak of, as it looks out to me. Would be interested to see the rads, or for you to explain further? Which bits, aligned? In relation to hoof capsules or not? Was the dorsal wall & sole plane marked for the rads?
Back heels particularly are high & a bit forward. Generally the distal(ground) surface of P3 should be within only about 5 degrees of ground parallel. The line I've drawn at the heel is a rough guesstimate of that angle & is far greater than 5 degrees. Of course, perhaps due to injury, conformation, etc, she may necessarily have clubby backs too.
The phalangeal alignment appears 'broken backed' if going off the dorsal(toe) hoof wall, which means that IF the wall was tightly attached, the alignment is out, but considering the heel height, hairline angle, etc, etc, I'm thinking the dorsal aspect of P3 is likely to align reasonably with P1, but not with the hoof wall. The depth of the collateral grooves in back of the foot compared with the depth(or almost complete lack of) at the front of the frog(s) are another indication of 'rotation' of the hoof capsule away from the bone. *Of course, pics on a slight angle can make things apear more skewed too.
After considering conformation, as it appears the sinking has left nothing affordable to come off the ground surface without invading live sole material, I'd probably bevel the backs, as per the line on the pic, so the angles can improve without aggressive lowering. Over time then, the bulging frogs(trying to reach the ground) will flatten and the internal structures will be higher, allowing the heels to be lowered more.
Assuming confo/injury dictates the angles need to stay as they are, as with the front left, I would be still keeping the toe breakover back where it should be, to avoid stress & separation at the toe - in line with pastern angle - and using pads to protect thin soles at the toe(certainly not thinning the already ultra thin soles as has been done
) and probably also using frog support pads, to allow the frogs/heels to be of use in supporting the horse despite the height.
The hind foot pic I've drawn on shows the guesstimate of distal surface P3 angle & the bevel I'd trim the heels if needing to lower them, the pastern angle as relates to the dorsal wall and the hairline, marked because the angle near the front - horizontal or perhaps even dipping forward - is one indication of P3 position/angle and the quite strongly curved region(jammed up) at the heel quarters indicates excess stress there.
The front left pic shows the(conservatively, I reckon) angle that the distal surface of P3 is on, and the angle the toe wall should be, if not flared. Rather than addressing it as has been done, by reducing thickness from the top and leaving it substantially flared still, I'd address it by bevelling/rolling the toe from the ground, back where breakover should be. The blue line is about as far forward as I'd want a shoe, if the horse was to be shod, and as with the backs, I'd definitely be padding the ultra thin sole at the toe and probably using a frog wedge for further heel support.
Oh & pic 153 is included to show that the farrier has shod to the quarter flare, rather than shoeing where the foot should be, which means the constant pressure on this area will perpetuate & possibly worsen the flare. Not going to comment on m/l balance apart from that, as it may be just the angle of the pics.