Starting with your form intersections, I think you're largely demonstrating a very well developing understanding of 3D space here, although there are a few issues I noticed that I marked out here. It's actually entirely normal for students to, while being more comfortable with the flat-on-flat intersections, to still struggle with those involving curving surfaces, and you are by and large demonstrating a good grasp there. The only shortcoming I'm noticing is the tendency to make your intersection lines much more dramatically curved (as shown with the cylinder-cylinder and sphere-box intersections towards the upper right of that first page. Always look back at the full curvature of the surface itself, so you can better consider just how much of a curve your intersection must have. Also, remember that a surface may be curved in one direction, but straight in another (like the length of our cylinders). This means that the more our intersection is angled down the length of the cylinder, the much shallower that curve will be, until it becomes entirely straight/flat.

Another issue I noticed were that your boxes definitely have some noticeable divergence, which suggests that you may not be practicing those freely rotated boxes/line extensions from the box challenge as much as you should in your warmups, and perhaps that you're trying to keep those edges more parallel on the page than you should be (which can result in divergence when we miss that mark - although keeping them parallel on the page is also incorrect, as this only happens when the set of lines in question represent edges that run perpendicularly to the angle at which the viewer is looking out into the world).

Lastly, don't forget to construct all your cylinders around a central minor axis line. While I don't think you really need this, I try to share this diagram regarding intersections with students at this stage, and I see no harm in providing it to you. It may help solidify some concepts, or you may already understand them.

Continuing onto your object constructions, you have undeniably done a fantastic job. You've demonstrated a great deal of patience and care, and have leveraged many of the tools introduced throughout the lesson, taking some even farther than intended. I honestly have very little of note worth calling out in critique, except for a fairly nitpicky point.

That is, in this course, refrain from applying any form shading to your constructions, and generally try to stick to reserving your filled areas of solid black for cast shadows only. So for example, for the keys on this keyboard, you filled in the side planes with solid black. This is essentially form shading, where we make a surface lighter or darker based on its orientation in space. Cast shadows themselves are the product of the relationship between a form casting the shadow, and the surface receiving it, and the shape itself is one that is specifically designed to convey and define this spatial relationship. It is however not uncommon for students to mix them up, so a good rule of thumb is that if you're simply filling in an existing shape, take a step back and ask yourself "which form is casting this shadow and which surface is receiving it". If you find that you're really just filling in a side plane, you can catch yourself and refrain from doing so before taking that next step.

Now, I mentioned that you've taken some concepts from the lesson and applied them even further. In particular, I'm talking about your use of the orthographic studies of our objects, something I introduced very minimally in the computer mouse demo, and only as far as subdividing the bounding box into quadrants, and then using those subdivisions as guides against which to judge the various landmarks of our objects. The approach as shown there, therefore, still relies on approximation and eyeballing, and more recently in my critiques I've been sharing with students how to take this approach further.

That is, by actually identifying those specific landmarks more directly - so for example, if we're constructing the front section of a drawer, we may note that its handle sits between the 2/5ths and 3/5ths mark, so we would define those subdivisions in our orthographic study and lay the handle out between those specific positions. This provides us with a clear set of decisions - areas where we've already made our choices, leaving us free to simply repeat them as we transfer that information into 3D space. When I say "decisions", that is quite specifically what I mean - it's not about finding the most accurate subdivision, but rather deciding on how it is you're going to approach constructing the object. So in the previous example, the drawer's handle might actually sit between the 19/50ths and 31/50ths marks, but because there's nothing else that relies on such a granular breakdown of the proportions, we can "round" them to the much more straight forward proportions of 2/5ths and 3/5ths.

Now, as I noted before, you've pretty much gone all this way on your own, without my additional advice. I of course plan to add this to the lesson, but there are many such little things that I explain in my critiques that will eventually be added to the lesson material as part of the overhaul, it's just going to be a good while before it gets there. But all that aside, I am very pleased to see that you've applied this principle in your own way.

The way you did it is one I haven't actually seen before, laying those orthographic diagrams beside your 3D construction, effectively making them somewhat 3D as well. While for most students I'll still strongly recommend doing these in a regular flat rectangle (rather than a plane projected in 3D), if this is how you are most comfortable doing it, you've certainly shown that it does work for you without any apparent issues, so you certainly have my blessing to continue doing it as such.

As a whole, you've done a fantastic job here, so I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. Keep up the great work.