Jumping right in with your form intersections, your work here is demonstrating an excellent and very thoroughly developed understanding of the relationships between your forms as they exist in 3D space. This exercise is a strange one, as it speaks to what this course as a whole is meant to tackle, so we certainly don't ever expect students to be able to attack it with much success when it's introduced. As they get their feet wet thinking through the 3D spatial puzzles constructional drawing provides them however, that understanding develops, and so while we still don't expect everything to be solid at this point, it is normal to see a good bit of growth. Usually students at this stage demonstrate a very strong grasp of intersections involving flat surfaces, while still having some difficulty when rounded surfaces are incorporated - but in your case, you appear to be very solidly comfortable with those as well.

Carrying onto your object constructions, as a whole you've definitely knocked it out of the park - you've demonstrated considerable patience and care when working through these, and your use of orthographic plans really lines up with the lesson's core focus on precision. 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.

Through the use of orthographic plans here, your constructions are all decided upon before you actually start constructing it - that saves your brain a whole lot of trouble when it comes time to actually draw the 3D object, as you can follow the recipe you've already concocted. It's still pretty challenging of course, but it allows you to focus all of your available mental resources on repeating the process, rather than also having to make decisions alongside it.

In terms of critique, what I have to offer is honestly quite minor, but still worth discussing - it has to do with constructions that have components to them that come together to create the whole, but where you wouldn't necessarily want to approach them as all being part of the same orthographic plan, or as being part of the same initial bounding box.

An example where you separated things out into their own bounding boxes (which I'd consider to be a good decision) is in the xbox series s/harddrive construction, given that the console and harddrive are completely separate objects without strict internal relationships between them, separating them out makes sense.

We can extend this however to these glasses - instead of using one big bounding box to enclose the entirety of the glasses, we can do one for the front section, and one for each of the arms. The deciding factor is that, like the HDD/xbox, we can't guarantee that the relationship is always going to be the same. The HDD could be moved, and the arms of the glasses frame could be folded to a wide variety of angles. Keeping the relationship looser in this case allows us that freedom. Taking that a step further, if we were drawing these glasses as part of an illustration, it might feel a little unnatural to have both arms out completely, and so separating out the bounding boxes would allow for a more natural arrangement.

Aside from that, your work here is phenomenal, and I'm especially pleased by the xbox controller which is undeniably complex. You did a fantastic job of identifying how the different components relate to one another, and in building them up bit by bit - starting with a "footprint" for how, say, a button or a thumbstick might sit on the controller's body, and then bringing them out from there all with the degree of precision this lesson hopes for you to achieve.

I'm excited to see you apply these same principles in Lesson 7, which is very much like this lesson, only considerably more challenging given the complexity of the subject matter. But of course before we get there, we must get through the wheel challenge. So, I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. Keep up the great work.