Jumping right in with your form intersections, this exercise is one of those that very much grows along with the student throughout the entirety of the course, as the skills it relies upon most heavily is the very spatial reasoning the course as a whole seeks to develop. So, even now, we're not expecting students to knock this one out of the park, but after having some opportunity to play with forms and explore how they interact in space through lessons 3-5's constructional drawing exercises, we do generally expect that students are more comfortable with intersections involving flat surfaces, while still having trouble when curving surfaces are added to the mix. You more or less meet that expectation.

I've noted some corrections here on one of your pages, but aside from the issues with the boxes (which are primarily rooted in you not applying the aspects of the Y method as thoroughly as you could - specifically the negotiating of corners), I think the main issue is that you aren't engaging with the intersections as unique combinations of different surfaces, but rather may still be trying to rely on some degree of memorization (in terms of, intersections that involve a cylinder and a box tend to come out like this). Unfortunately memorization doesn't help us much here - we have to actually look at the surfaces that are present, and consider how they relate to one another.

Even with complex intersections involving many forms, at any given location along the intersection line, there's only going to be two surfaces at play, and even with forms like spheres which can potentially have an infinite number of potential cross-sections, by looking at the surfaces at play we can quickly limit ourselves to only having to pay attention to one at a time.

Take a look at this diagram. Sure, the sphere can have any number of cross-sections that may be relevant, but each of the box's planes tells us which of the sphere's cross-section they care to interact with. Then, by following these surfaces along the relevant paths, we get two curves that meet together at the box's edge. The diagram also takes this further to explore how the function the edge plays (it's where we suddenly jump from following one surface to following an entirely different one) can occur over a larger span of space, giving us something more similar to a rounded surface, despite not being that different from a hard edge. This can potentially help us better understand how rounded surfaces work in 3D space, by framing them in relationship to edges, as a gradual transition from one surface to another.

Anyway, this exercise will be included with Lesson 7's assignments as well, so keep working at applying what I've shared here, and we'll take another look at that point. Oh, one additional thing - don't use hatching in the way that you have here. The instructions for this exercise actually includes these notes on hatching. Note what it says about not using hatching on the directions in which surfaces are curving (as it will flatten them out), and that generally leaving them off curving surfaces altogether is best.

Continuing onto your object constructions, by and large your work here is well done, although admittedly I did notice some things that confused me. For example, looking at this bottle upclose, I can see what appears to be pencil marks thhat look entirely different from both the (I assume, ballpoint) pen you used to draw the box and subdivision, and the fineliner you used to outline the object afterwards - which I should note goes directly against the instructions given in the tools section of the instructions, which state that you should not be switching your pens to perform a clean-up pass. Upon closer inspection of other constructions, I noticed similar marks, like here on this flashlight. While I can't confidently speak to whether or not that is pencil, I think it's pretty clear that you need to take more care to follow the instructions to the letter, especially in terms of which tools are permitted, which are not, and how they ought to be used. Similar marks like this coming up in your Lesson 7 work may result in the work being rejected.

Aside from that, your work is largely well done. You've leveraged the tools provided throughout the lesson to hold to the lesson's core focus: 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.

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.

One thing that did stand out to me, was that on this stapler's side view it extended far beyond the bottom of the structure, even though the bounding box you used to construct the object in 3 dimensions was missing this lower part. I'm assuming you did something to translate between them, as it came out fine, but I did want to call this out as on its own ensuring that the orthographic plans do describe the same space, and that there aren't significant differences between how they're meant to be applied in 3D space is important.

Another point worth mentioning is that as you were applying the "clean-up pass" (you can read more about why this is a bad idea here), you likely would have found that the way we leverage line weight would have been much more conducive to having your construction stand out amongst all of the construction lines. Our approach to line weight focuses on being subtle rather than making everything obscenely thick, sticking to the principles of markmaking in Lesson 1 (you got very chicken scratchy when going back over your lines, which does undermine those principles quite strongly),

The last thing I wanted to call out is that it appears you tend to approximate your curves, so I wanted to pull your attention back to this section, which demonstrates how we can achieve more overall control over our curving structures by first building out a scaffolding of straight edges, then "rounding" them out towards the end.

Aside from that, your work is progressing decently - just please be sure to stay within the restrictions of the course, as they serve to both ensure that you get the most out of them, and that we are able to critique your work efficiently. I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete.