Starting with your form intersections, your work here is generally demonstrating a well developing grasp of how these different forms relate to one another in 3D space. You're demonstrating a fair bit of comfort with both the simpler flat-on-flat intersections as well as many of the more complex round-on-round ones (which many students still continue to have trouble with at this point). That said, I did catch one very subtle issue that I wanted to draw to your attention, along with another minor point.

It has to do with how you're handling intersections between two rounded surfaces - and to be completely fair I'm not entirely sure whether the issue is that you're not quite grasping this last little bit, or if you are grasping it, and just not conveying it as clearly as you could. As I've marked out here, on the right side your intersection is primarily an intersection wrapping around the surface of the cone. There's a slight flair out to either side, but it's hard to say whether that's intentional. Either way, as shown on the right in blue/green, we need a bit more of a curve on either end, where we're going from following the cylinder's surface more dominantly, to following the cone's, and back to the cylinders.

While this may not be as straightforward to wrap one's head around in this kind of example, this diagram should help take you step by step through the concept. We'll be revisiting this exercise in Lesson 7, so we'll continue to look at your progress with it there.

As to the minor point, you're definitely overusing line weight, and you tend to apply it a little more hesitantly than you should. Remember - line weight is applied with a focus on clarifying how different forms overlap one another, generally focused on the areas where those overlaps occur (read more about that here). Each stroke is executed using the ghosting method so as to ensure a more confident execution. Avoid tracing over those lines, as tracing makes us focus on how the marks we want to draw exist in the 2D space of the flat page.

Continuing onto your object constructions, you've honestly done a great job. You've shown a great deal of attention being paid to the concept of precision, which is the primary focus of this lesson. While previous lessons - from 3 to 5 - tend to work in a sort of inside-out fashion where we're reacting to the results of the previous stage and building upon them (allowing us to really just roll with whatever mistakes we made previously), the approach we're using here focuses on making decisions up-front, as much as possible.

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.

Now there are a ton of ways in which you've leaned hard into this, and have yielded good results from it. Some of that comes down to making good use of orthographic plans to make a lot of those major decisions up-front (we see this with this charging adapter, which despite its simplicity really nails the positioning of those different landmarks, ensuring specificity and symmetry where it's required), while in other situations you make more of your decisions on the 3D construction, but you still approach them in stages, laying out your appropriate subdivisions or mirroring as needed, rather than trying to eyeball.. well, anything. And that's fantastic.

There's really just one point I wanted to call out - or rather, two, but they're about the same construction. This knife. The two issues are as follows:

• Firstly, that knife blade is, based on your reference, centered to the handle - but the way you've drawn it has it aligned to the top surface of your bounding box. Ideally you would have subdivided your bounding box vertically and positioned the edge of the blade along that center line. Not a huge problem, but definitely an oversight.

• Secondly, you jumped into drawing the curve of the knife's edge in one step, going straight into establishing the curve. These notes explain why we should be breaking that curve into a series of straight lines, in order to establish it with much more specificity, before rounding it out afterwards. Jumping into the curve simply involves too much guesswork and decision making all in the same action - breaking it down into stages of identifying specific landmarks along that curve (an orthographic plan would help here), and then identifying those same landmarks in 3D space, structuring them together with straight lines, then rounding them out would help result in a more solid result. You can see an example of this kind of approach in the handle of this coffee mug.

And that about covers it! I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete.