While I do think this is a step in the right direction, I am concerned that a number of issues I called out in the previous critique are not being addressed in as direct a manner as I would like. I think that while you're certainly making an effort to address the concerns I called out before, you're not following the points as strictly as you should be, and still end up taking a fair number of liberties with them.

The first of these is head construction. In my previous critique I referred you to the process and explanation demonstrated here.

In your full animal constructions, you don't really seem to apply the methodology shared there at all, often ending up with eye sockets that float more loosely in relation to the other facial components, or muzzles that do not have a clearly defined relationship/connection to the cranial ball in the manner demonstrated in that informal demo.

In some of the more specific head studies I feel like I can see an initial attempt, in some cases, to lay down a more intentional eye socket shape with straighter lines, but it often gets replaced with more organic shapes instead. For example, the eye on the left side of the dog's face appears to have lighter linework to start which seems to be straighter lines, but then you've gone back over it for some reason with what appears to be a darker, more elliptical shape.

I get the feeling that in your attempt to work hard at this, you're overshooting the very simple matter of just following the steps and processes that have been shared with you. The approach shown in the informal demo is pretty straightforward - every individual element that is added has its relationship with the existing structure defined (like the edge of the muzzle that curves along the surface of the cranial ball), and every element has its own particular shape configuration. While it is inevitably going to be adjusted a little here and there to fit the needs of a particular reference, you're going way beyond that and you need to rein yourself back.

Moving onto your use of additional masses, you've still got a lot of complexity in the design of each of those forms' silhouettes that does not conform to the points I shared in my critique. Remember that as shown in this diagram, you need to be intentional with where you place complexity (the inward curves and corners), and anywhere there is no contact being made with another form, you have to stick to the more simple outward curves.

While there are some cases where you're somewhat shaping these forms' silhouettes (though not intentionally enough), there are others like the form on the rear portion of the cat's back where you just drew an arbitrary blob. There - and in some other cases - you've still attempted to use half-hearted contour lines to make these forms feel more three dimensional, despite the points I raised about this before.

As a whole, I do not feel you're applying the points I raised directly enough, and so the manner in which you go through my feedback may not be allowing you to keep it in mind actively enough to apply it to your work. The feedback I give here is dense, and often require students to go through it multiple times to be properly and fully absorbed. As we are all prone to forgetting things, going through it before each drawing, and reviewing the diagrams frequently will help you better apply the feedback to your work in a more direct fashion, instead of in a more vague manner.

Once you've had a chance to go through my original critique again in its entirety, I'd like you to try completing the assigned revisions again.