Jumping right in with your form intersections, you're demonstrating a very well developed grasp of how these forms interact with one another in 3D space. You're showing a high degree of comfort in dealing with a variety of different spatial relationships - including those between different flat surfaces, curved-and-flat surfaces, as well as the especially challenging intersections between different curved surfaces. I have just one point to call out, and it's pretty minor.

Where you add line weight, there tends to be a very sudden jump from thick to thin, rather than a subtler transition. This could be addressed by simply being a little lighter with your use of line weight (it really doesn't have to be super obvious, as line weight is more of a whisper to the viewer's subconscious, rather than a loud announcement), so just a slight increase of line weight in those overlapping areas is plenty. Of course, pressure control also plays a role, so you'll likely want to play with both easing up in general, and trying to get those later strokes to taper off towards their start/end.

Continuing onto your object constructions, your work throughout this lesson is extremely well done. You've demonstrated a clear focus on the particular concepts emphasized in this lesson, and have even taken some of them further in a manner I highly approve of. We'll talk about that one towards the end of the critique.

At its core, this lesson is all about the concept of precision, taking us from working in a reactive fashion as we did in Lessons 3-5 (where we could roll with things being out of proportion as long as we focused on reinforcing the sense that every element we added existed as a 3D form), and switches things around. Instead of working inside-out (laying down the basic structure and building upon it), here we work outside-in, defining the bounding box in which our object will exist, and then breaking that space up in order to place forms within it at specific locations, and with specific relationships between them.

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. You've leveraged those subdivisions extremely well, and in general, you aren't prone to skipping steps - at least, not in most cases. One thing that would have helped is leveraging the concept explained here more fully, being sure to represent all your curved surfaces using chains of straight edges first, then rounding them out towards the end. You did respect the general premise of that section from the notes fairly well (especially in terms of rounding out your corners and whatnot), but it would definitely be valuable to start out any curving surface as a series of flat ones first, just to pin down its intended nature with as much specificity as possible.

Now what really pleases me about your submission here is how you're leveraging the orthographic plans. Where they're introduced in the computer mouse demo, the application is pretty basic (and I have every intent to expand how they're leveraged when my overhaul of the demo material reaches this far into the course). In doing many, many critiques of Lesson 6 and 7 work, I've found the value in using the orthographic plans to basically decide where each major landmark on the object would fall, so that the landmark could then be reproduced in the 3D construction using the same subdivision techniques.

It really all comes down to decisions. Choosing where things will go, based on what we're observing, rather than trying to reproduce what we're observing with perfect accuracy. In effect, if we were constructing a drawer and the handle was positioned between the 19/50ths and 31/50ths marks, that would be incredibly tedious to subdivide. Choosing to place it between the 2/5ths and 3/5ths marks however would be far more feasible, with virtually no perceptible loss in accuracy.

And that's exactly what you've done throughout a great deal of your work here - despite it not being included in the lesson material (yet). Ultimately the lesson material will in iterations continue to get better and better - teaching is really a matter of self-reflection, trying to identify the things I take for granted - but you appear to have picked up on those gaps and seen how the technique could be applied even further. Fantastic work.

So! I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. Be sure to keep this up as you continue forwards!