While it's not abnormal for a student to misunderstand or misinterpret part of the critique, there are certain kinds of things that suggest quite clearly that a student hasn't actually followed what was stated.

This came up with the first time you submitted Lesson 3 - your revisions repeated the same issues I called out quite specifically. And it has happened again with these revisions.

In regards to your branches, I stated:

For your branches, while these are mostly looking good, you're missing the part of the instructions that states your line segments should go from one ellipse, past the second, and halfway to the third, then the next should start at the second ellipse and continue this pattern as shown here. As a result, you end up missing on the overlap between them that is intended to make the transition more seamless from one to the next.

I actually called this out in your original homework submission as well. But what I see here is that you did not make any visible attempt to change your approach - so even if you didn't understand what I was explaining for whatever reason, no attempt was made to actually figure it out. You just repeated the same process you'd applied previously.

Here I've drawn out the issue right on your work. Your segments start at an ellipse, go past the next ellipse, and stop halfway to the third.

As a side note to this, you should be drawing through all of your ellipses as explained here.

The veins on your leaves in your plant drawing are a very minor point, but the same thing happened again. I mentioned:

Just one point in regards to your leaf vein texture here - you worked pretty exclusively with line there. You were on the right track in terms of drawing around the veins instead of drawing the veins themselves, but as discussed back in Lesson 2, the key is to work in cast shadow shapes rather than lines. You can actually see a direct example of this in the instructions for this exercise.

The key point there was "draw shapes, not lines". As shown here you drew in lines again, same as before. No attempt to change the approach. In my original critique of your lesson 3 work, I talked about this sort of thing, and showed you this two-step process which makes it impossible to work in line, but you're not applying it.

One thing you did improve upon in your second Lesson 3 submission (the one I critiqued yesterday) compared to the previous one, is that you were drawing your flower pots much better, with multiple ellipses to define the thickness of the rim, you constructed them around a central minor axis line, and so on. Unfortunately you appear not to have done that here.

The last point is that about 14 hours passed in between me submitting my critique and you submitting your revisions. Sure, you were only asked for two pages of revisions, but that's not a lot of time to read my critique, to think about it, to work through what I'm saying, and to do the revisions while applying what was called out, making an effort to improve. And that lines up with what I'm seeing.

From my perspective, it seems a lot like instead of putting that additional time in, you're churning your work out as quickly as you can, not investing the appropriate time to process the information provided to you, in favour of having me explain things over and over again. Instead of investing your time, you're having me spend more of mine. That unfortunately is not how this works. Drawabox is able to be as cheap as it is entirely because students are expected to put in the majority of the effort and time.

I will give you one more opportunity to do the requested revisions correctly, and if you continue to use the same approaches I've called out previously, in this critique and those given for the previous submission, I don't think you'll be able to continue along with this course. It really isn't that you're bad at this - for the most part you're doing quite well, but if you are obstinate in following clear instructions, then this simply won't be worth either of our time.