Starting with your form intersections, your intersections themselves are looking good - they clearly demonstrate a good grasp of how these forms interact with one another in three dimensions. Your linework however does leave a bit to be desired - you're not as mindful as you could be in using the ghosting method to execute your marks, you're prone to doubling up strokes automatically (slipping into auto-pilot instead of, again, consciously employing the ghosting method for every mark and avoiding fixing mistakes). So do be mindful of that, as the use of the ghosting method for all our freehanded marks is at the bedrock of how we're meant to approach drawing consciously, and with forethought preceding every action. It's that very thing which ensures that these things will seep into our subconscious, so when we draw our own stuff outside of the course, we can focus on the things that really matter (design, composition, etc).

Continuing onto your object constructions, as a whole you've done really well in applying the core principles of this lesson. Those issues pertaining to your linework are certainly still present, so that's certainly something you will want to be very mindful of going forward, but I won't beat a dead horse. Instead, let's talk about what you've done well, where you can improve, and how this all relates back to the core focus of the lesson.

Above all else, this lesson focuses on the concept of precision, and of working in a sort of outside-in manner (laying out the large bounding box and then breaking it up into smaller sub-sections of space, to gradually refine and carve out our desired structure), whereas up until this point we've mainly been working outside-in, allowing ourselves to roll with mistakes. If an initial cranial ball was too big when constructing an animal's head, well we just end up building upon it and ending up with a head that is obviously disproportionate, but still structurally solid and three dimensional. Conversely, the approach here requires us to do a lot more thinking ahead of time, and to define our intent.

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 a lot of ways, you've held to this principle really well. We can see this especially in how you've taken the orthographic plans we introduced fairly loosely in the computer mouse demo, and started building on top of them in cases like these weights. Specifically I'm referring to the fact that while you started with the basic subdivision of the orthographics into quadrants, you also added additional lines, employing the mirroring technique and whatnot to directly make more concrete decisions within the study (rather than limiting it to just the quadrants). This is important, and is something I'm going to be leaning into more when overhauling this lesson, but I'm pleased to see that you picked up on this use of it on your own. Ultimately the purpose of these orthographic plans is to make decisions apart from our actual 3D construction. The more decisions we make there, the less we have to think about as we construct it in 3D - at that point it's just a matter of following the recipe you've already defined.

This doesn't inherently mean that every decision has to be made up-front. There will inevitably be decisions you realize you hadn't made while you're working on the 3D construction, but this can be addressed in one of two ways. Ideally (though perhaps more time consumingly) you can go back to your orthographic plan, make your decision there, and then apply it again in your 3D construction. On the other hand, you can use subdivision on the fly in order to at least lay down the groundwork for the decision you're making.

What we do want to avoid however are situations where we just kind of wing it, and add things based on observation. For example, if you look at the A/B/X/Y buttons on this controller, their positioning and the space they occupy was not defined beforehand, but rather as you were drawing the buttons themselves. Instead, establishing a plane that defines the "footprint" of each button, which we can see you doing with your thumbsticks, would be a useful intermediary step. And of course, you can use the mirroring techniques or other subdivision techniques to place those footprints in specific locations, so that when you do construct the buttons themselves, you're placing them based on a criteria that has already been specifically defined.

The last thing I wanted to mention is a minor point, but something to keep in mind going forwards. I noticed that in some of your drawings (for example this table), you laid down your initial bounding box and subdivision with a lighter ballpoint, then switched to a fineliner to draw the table itself. As noted here in the instructions where I give permission to use ballpoint pens, I do note that you should not then swap to another pen. Keep this in mind for Lesson 7, as the same instructions are in place there.

And with that, I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. While you do have some more basic things to keep an eye on, your understanding of the concepts in this lesson are coming along quite well.