Starting with your form intersections, these are a bit of a mixed bag. Overall the impression I'm getting is that you do understand how these forms relate to one another in 3D space, but that you have a tendency when actually drawing the intersection lines to rely more on memorization or instinct - that is, rather than necessarily looking at the information present on the page about how each form and their surfaces sit in space, you tend jump straight to the answer. I've marked out a number of corrections here - among these you'll notice a number of places where I reversed the direction of a curving intersection line where it was not running along the surface of one of the two forms.

In addition to this, I noted:

• There were some places where you'd cross an edge of a form but instead of allowing the intersection to hit a sharp corner where it would reorient its trajectory at that edge, you had it approach it as though it was more of a gradual, rounded transition instead of a hard/sharp one. This is what this diagram, which I'd shared with you back in Lesson 6's critique, specifically addresses.

• I noticed that you weren't building your cylinders around central minor axis lines, as noted here in the instructions for this exercise (specifically in the diagram). It is also useful for cones.

Continuing onto your boxes in cylinders, your work here is solid, and you appear to be applying the line extensions well to analyze your work, such that it can continually be improved in successive iterations.

Continuing onto your form intersection vehicles, these aren't building upon the form intersection exercise quite as directly as I would like - although they're not terribly far off either. When doing this exercise in the future, remember that the goal is to approach them just as you would the form intersections - the vehicle aspect of it simply speaks to how the forms themselves will be arranged. The core goal of it is to remind students that their main focus throughout the whole lesson's vehicle constructions is to continue to define simple volumes in space and whittle them down, rather than building up a forest of individual edges and then stitching them together into a coherent object at the end.

While you didn't entirely follow the spirit of the form intersection aspect of the exercise (you did to a degree, of course), you still did largely get this goal out of it, so all in all, we still achieved the impact we wanted, so I wouldn't worry too much about this. I also think that goal being achieved is reflected quite well in your later more detailed vehicle constructions, where you certainly didn't merely stitch together edges at the end, but rather built the whole thing out from solid and simple masses.

As a whole, I'm quite pleased with how you've tackled your detailed vehicle constructions and their orthographic plans. Earlier on the orthographic plans weren't being leveraged quite as stringently as they could have been - for example, with certain landmarks being left out like the front edge of the windshield in the side view of this one, which you would have had to estimate/decide upon during your 3D construction. This is something you did improve upon over the set however, and I can see far more care in your later orthographics and more overall breakdown of the proportions.

I am especially pleased with this jeep, and while this one came out very smushed (due to the bounding box not being nearly as long as it should have been), you still stuck to the steps and built the object out. Mistakes happen, but ensuring that you continue holding to the steps of the process will help make the result feel solid and real, even if it's a little.. silly.

I did look into why exactly the proportions of that bounding box were so off, and looking at the ellipses as I've marked out here, it appears that they were not aligned correctly. Not really sure what resulted in this, but here you'll see roughly the minor axes of each ellipse below, and the red/blue arrow a little higher up on their own show the directions the minor axes should have been aligned to.

While you have used this methodology (the constructing to scale one explained in this video) correctly in a number of cases, this may be something you'd want to review just to make sure you understand it in its entirety, and consider how that mistake came about.

The last thing I wanted to offer is a brief reminder that - and the demostrations aren't entirely consistent on this, given that some are from before we started pushing in this direction - when it comes to filled areas of solid black, in this course we want to focus their use on conveying cast shadows. We don't want to use them to simply fill in spaces as you did here in the wheel wells and between the rims of the rear wheel, as this doesn't convey additional information that pertains to the 3D relationships between the forms that are present. The only exception to this is that it's generally okay to fill in the interior of a vehicle as you did here (where the internal forms' silhouettes are filled in, so not filling the entirety of the windows in as we see here). We get away with this by claiming that the exterior structure is casting a shadow onto the inside, but honestly it just makes the construction easier to understand, without undermining its solidity. For everything else though, if you're going to draw anything solid black, be sure that it is a cast shadow, whose shape you are designing based on the relationship between the form casting it and the surface receiving it.

All in all, your work has been done well enough and demonstrates a general understanding of the concepts that is solid enough to consider this lesson, and the course as a whole, as complete. There are certainly points you can improve upon, but the points I've called out should help you do so with continued practice on your own. Congratulations!