Starting with your form intersections, overall you're making good headway. There are some issues, but it is not by any means strange to still have things to iron out with this exercise. It's one of those that continually grows with us throughout the course, so it does make a last appearance in Lesson 7.

I've made some notes on your work here. There are two main points to keep in mind here:

• Most significantly, when considering how two forms will intersect, it helps to specifically identify which pairs of surfaces are intersecting with one another and where. While it's these two forms intersecting, it's the nature of the surfaces themselves that determine the path the intersection will follow. Some forms are made up of only one surface - like spheres, which consist of a single curved surface. Other forms may contain several surfaces, like boxes which are made up of six flat surfaces. You've also got forms that may consist of multiple surfaces of different kinds, like cylinders and cones which feature both flat surfaces and curved ones. Making it even more complicated, the lengthwise surface of cones and cylinders are actually only curved in one direction - they're straight in the direction from one end to the other, meaning that the actual direction in which we're intersecting with it matters. So rather than looking at the forms to determine the kinds of intersections we're looking at, we have to look at the forms themselves, and the way in which they're cutting into one another. This can help to avoid issues like what we see in that bottom-right cone, where you default to using curves for the intersection with the box above it. Instead, the portion of the intersection involving one of the box's faces intersecting with the base of the cone should be a straight line, and the portion intersecting with the length of the cone should curve but only very slightly, as it's still mostly moving along the length of the cone, leaning more into the flatter aspect of the surface.

• The above is pretty long and likely hard to consume, so this diagram which demonstrates how we can look at those different surfaces, as well as how our intersections might change as the surfaces themselves do, may help to better understand.

• The second point is somewhat simpler - when deciding which planes to focus on, make sure they aren't the ones pointing away from the viewer. I noticed in some cases, like the box-box intersection towards the upper right, it appeared as though you may have been thinking about the intersection from the opposite side.

Continuing onto your object constructions, overall you're moving in the right direction here with many of your constructions coming out fairly decently, although there are a few critical points I want to make sure you understand - the biggest of those being to do with how we use the orthographic plans, as currently you aren't really employing them as instructed in the lesson.

I'm going to work under the assumption that you did not read through those notes or go through that demo (since your own approach differs quite significantly from it). Instead of reiterating it here, I'll ask that before you continue reading through this feedback, you read through what's stated and demonstrated there.

Ultimately as explained in those notes, the orthographic plans serve the purpose of allowing us to make clear and specific decisions on how the different aspects of our constructions relate to one another - mostly in terms of relative proportions, how big one section should be relative to another. We want to make those decisions two dimensions at a time (so as to avoid the additional complexity of worrying about the third dimension), and using techniques and tools that allow us to transfer that information into the third dimension once it's all been pinned down.

Your orthographic plans don't really assist in this, because as we can see here in this spray bottle, you haven't actually made any decisions. You've simply drawn the object in a simplified form, floating in a space, but without leveraging any of the subdivision techniques that would allow you to decide on the sizes and proportions, and then transfer them to a three dimensional construction. As such, the resulting three dimensional construction suffers from inconsistencies as we see here. Due to the lack of appropriate planning, you ended up trying to make way too many decisions at once here, and ended up with inconsistencies like the back edge slanting inwards when you likely intended for it to be aligned to the vertical edge. I also noticed that the point at which that edge touches the ground is further from the side plane than the corresponding edge along the front is (which is why I drew the forward blue rectangle larger. In general, there are a lot of little things here that build up into more and more issues:

• Not applying the orthographic plan means having to make more decisions while you're constructing your 3D structure.

• The bounding box itself has issues, as we can see here. You may want to shift your warmup routine around so you can spend more time on exercises like the freely rotated boxes with line extensions introduced in the 250 box challenge.

• While you've definitely made much better use of subdivision in other constructions, like the mouse demo drawing, this plug adapter, and so forth, for this spray bottle you relied much more on just eyeballing things without going into the specificity and precision that subdivisions provide.

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.

This is no doubt very time consuming - you're basically building a blueprint for your object and then going back through all of the steps in three dimension - but that is what this lesson demands. Before I can mark this lesson as complete, I will need to see more examples of you leveraging this more fully - both in terms of establishing those orthographic plans properly, and in terms of taking as much time as you require to build up your constructions without skipping any steps or estimating any relationships by eye.