A lot of students approach learning to draw with a sense that they themselves are, at least to some degree, guiding their own learning, and so when they work with an instructor there is sometimes the expectation that both are working together in a collaborative fashion to achieve the shared goal. When it comes to the core fundamentals of drawing however, I've always felt that this didn't entirely make sense, and so the way in which this course is designed reflects that. Further into one's studies, the student will absolutely have more understanding with which to guide themselves - but for the core concepts Drawabox seeks to teach, I don't believe it's entirely reasonable to expect the students themselves to help guide the trajectory.

Rather, their role is to follow the instructions to the best of their ability, and to provide the results to help the instructor to identify what it is the student does appear to grasp, and what they might be missing. This also lines up with a lot of the things we're delving into here being more about developing the student's instincts and subconscious understanding, rather than just their conscious understanding. It's the conscious understanding that can be discussed, but when we focus too many of our resources there (because it certainly does make the student feel more comfortable), it limits the resources we have to commit to where it has the greater impact. Given the limitations on our resources with the information being freely available, and the official critique being largely supported by those who allow their credits to expire, so the base price can be kept as low as possible, it's simply one of those trade-offs we're forced to make.

Long story short, worry not - the proof is in the pudding. What you do and don't understand is visible in your work, so while you may not be entirely certain about it, that won't hinder your ability to make good use of the course. So! Let's jump into your critique.

Starting with your form intersections, overall you're demonstrating a well developing understanding of how these forms relate to one another in 3D space. At this stage, it's pretty normal for students to be fairly comfortable with intersections involving flat/straight surfaces, but still to have a fair bit of discomfort with those involving curved surfaces. You're further along than that, although I did note some minor corrections here. Keep focusing on the individual surfaces that are intersecting, and how they flow through space, to help you decide in which way the intersection line must flow in order to remain on both surfaces simultaneously. This diagram may also help.

Continuing onto your object constructions, you really needn't worry that you're not understanding what you're meant to - your extremely thorough use of orthographic plans here has helped you keep your focus largely on the core concept of this lesson, which is all about working with precision. Precision is often conflated with accuracy, but they're actually two different things (at least insofar as I use the terms here). Where accuracy speaks to how close you were to executing the mark you intended to, precision actually has nothing to do with putting the mark down on the page. It's about the steps you take beforehand to declare those intentions.

So for example, if we look at the ghosting method, when going through the planning phase of a straight line, we can place a start/end point down. This increases the precision of our drawing, by declaring what we intend to do. From there the mark may miss those points, or it may nail them, it may overshoot, or whatever else - but prior to any of that, we have declared our intent, explaining our thought process, and in so doing, ensuring that we ourselves are acting on that clearly defined intent, rather than just putting marks down and then figuring things out as we go.

In your constructions here, you've built up precision primarily through the use of the subdivisions. You studied them meaningfully in your orthographic plans, and made those decisions ahead of time, so that when it came time to transfer those proportions into 3D space, you were able to focus just on that, rather than making your choices as well.

There is one area in which your work here can be improved however. As it stands, when you're drawing these bounding boxes, I think you drift too close to trying to make their edges parallel on the page. While actually having all three sets of parallel edges remain parallel when drawn as lines (in other words, forcing their vanishing points to infinity) would itself be incorrect when using perspective (as explained in the video on this page), it can also easily result in our edges diverging as they move farther away from the viewer, rather than converging. We can see this by extending some of those lines, here, here, and here.

Now given the size of these objects, keeping our foreshortening shallow is certainly appropriate, but try to push that convergence a little more than you are currently to avoid this issue. Additionally, keep in mind that when using a ruler (as is permitted for this lesson), it can actually show you the trajectory of the line you're looking to draw without having to commit to drawing it - meaning, it'll show you how that line extends so you can compare it to the others and note whether it's likely to diverge or remain too parallel, if you know to look for it. So be sure to keep that in mind.

Aside from that, great work, and I expect your fastidiousness here with your orthographic plans will serve you very well in Lesson 7. I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete.