Jumping right in with your form intersections, right off the bat I'm quite impressed. It's largely expected that after working through Lessons 3-5, students get more comfortable with spatial relationships, which leads to them having more success with some of the form intersections - specifically those involving flat-on-flat surface intersections. That said, the flat-on-curved intersections tend to be a bit harder, and the curved-on-curved ones end up being vastly more difficult. In your case however you're knocking each of these out of the park, and are demonstrating a very well developed understanding of how these forms relate to one another in space.

Perhaps a little unfortunately for me - given that it doesn't leave me with a ton to say or with much advice to offer - this carries forward right into your object constructions. You're doing an excellent job here, and what's emphasized above all else here is a clear dedication to imbuing your constructions, through your approach, with a great deal of precision - which is at the heart of this lesson.

In the lessons prior to this, we'd primarily operate in a reactionary fashion, building our constructions from the inside out - that is, we'd lay down a mass, and based on how that mass ended up being drawn, we'd space everything else out accordingly. This lesson marks a significant change from that, and has us working more outside-in. Everything is plotted out ahead of time, with the decisions we make throughout the process playing a much more significant role.

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.

Throughout your constructions, you generally work with a great deal of this sort of precision - these premade decisions and assertions as to where things go - although there are a few places where that level of precision is diminished and you instead eyeball things a bit more.

This kettle is a good example of this, as it gives us two points we can talk about. The first of these are the components of the structure whose positioning was not strictly decided upon prior to building the object in 3D space. As shown here, if we look at the spout, we can see that there are a lot of landmarks - where the spout connects to the main body of the kettle at its top and bottom, how far out the spout extends, etc. - that aren't strictly placed according to a specific proportion along a given dimension.

Now I'm not saying we need to employ subdivision to get to increments of 1/50ths or something crazy like that - but rather that we simply make a decision as to where things should go, even if we are actively rounding those numbers one way or the other. As long as a decision is made ahead of time, we don't have to try and figure it out as we're building up the construction.

The second point here is that the curve of the handle is structurally vague. This is a facet of how curves tend to work, as explained here in the notes. If you jump straight in with a curve, it's likely to end up feeling a bit vague or unclear as to what structure it was meant to build up - although in all fairness, your curves here are consistent enough in their trajectory to still feel pretty solid. It's still a conceptual point that such structures should first be built up with a series of flat planes/straight lines, and rounded out towards the end. You can see an example of this here on this mug's handle.

All that said, your adherence to the principles of precision has still been present throughout the majority of your constructions, with perhaps little landmarks here and there that weren't strictly determined, though to a degree that is entirely normal for this lesson. As you continue moving forwards, you'll want to keep pushing yourself to increase the threshold of features you're actively plotting out on your orthographic plans, especially when you tackle the cars in Lesson 7 - but as a whole you're progressing very well.

So! I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. Keep up the great work.