Jumping right in with your form intersections, your work here is really well done. At this stage in the game we actually only expect students to be solidly comfortable with intersections involving flat surfaces, and to still be somewhat uncomfortable or uncertain when curving surfaces are added into the mix, but you've been pretty confidently comfortable with both. The only issues I was able to find were the two involving this cylinder, but all in all two minor hiccups in the whole set suggests that your overall grasp of these spatial relationships is quite strong.

Normally students need to continue working on focusing on the specific surfaces that are involved in a given intersection, and while you appear to be grasping that just fine, I did want to include this diagram, which speaks to that point. Figured it wouldn't hurt to pass it along either way.

Continuing onto your object constructions, honestly you're continuing to maintain the same general tred - your work here suggests a strong adherence to the core principles of this lesson, which ultimately focus on the idea of precision and what we can do to increase it in our approach.

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 our constructions here, we build up precision primarily through the use of the subdivisions. These allow us to meaningfully study the proportions of our intended object in two dimensions with an orthographic study, then apply those same proportions to the object in three dimensions.

While you didn't include orthographic plans for most of your work here (it's not strictly required for this lesson, though it is for Lesson 7), your approach generally implies that you did work with them where they were really needed - so if you didn't, well... that suggests a capacity for keeping a lot of complexity straight in your head, but I'm going to work under the assumption that you did use them as instructed in this section of the lesson. In the one example we do have of its use (the pencil sharpener), you leveraged the tool quite effectively.

I'm also pleased to see how fastidiously you stick to concepts like how to handle curves - your use of scaffolding to build up to them is thorough, but it's also clear that every mark you did put down is doing a lot of heavy lifting. There's nothing that doesn't serve a specific purpose, which itself speaks to a lot of conscious decisions being made throughout the process. The airpod case, which leverages this in multiple dimensions at the same time, further demonstrates a strong grasp of these concepts.

Honestly, I don't really have any criticism to offer. You've gone through the lesson thoroughly, and have demonstrated an apt understanding of each point. I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. Keep up the great work.