Starting with your form intersections, as a whole you're doing a good job of demonstrating an understanding of 3D space that has developed quite nicely. At this stage, we expect students to be reasonably comfortable with intersections involving flat surfaces, while still having some issues with the more complex intersections involving curved surfaces, but as a whole you honestly appear to be quite comfortable with both. You're demonstrating clear consideration to how the intersection lines run along both pairs of surfaces at any given point, and are mindful of how those intersections hit sharp corners wherever they cross a hard edge, or otherwise shift their trajectory more gradually when crossing a rounded surface.

I really have just one minor, really inconsequential thing to call out - I would recommend drawing your intersection lines with the same colour as the rest of your linework. Drawing them in a separate colour makes them feel more like an additional analysis, whereas if we were welding these forms together in 3D space, the intersection lines themselves would actually be the edges at which our surfaces dramatically change their trajectory, so they are indeed physical boundaries to represent. It really is a minor point, but I've found that subtle things like this can influence the way in which a student engages with the illusion of form.

Continuing onto your object constructions, as a whole you've similarly done a great job. I can see that you're leveraging the techniques presented throughout the lesson, and most importantly you're doing so towards a 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.

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 - and while you were kind enough to mention that you did use orthographic plans despite their not being included, it was very clear that you had done so anyway! Their impact is very clear on your constructions.

I was especially pleased with how you handled some of the more complex, curved constructions - things like the xbox controller, which though not being an organic structure definitely straddles the line between organic and geometric, and definitely demands the most of us when using our precision-focused techniques. Despite this, you handled it really well, and the structure comes out feeling confident and solid. There were certainly ways in which the precision could have been pushed even further - for example, the buttons and thumbsticks were positioned around a central point, which means that their positioning would have been consistent and precise, but their size was left up to estimation. It looks like your judgment on that was pretty sound, but for the purposes of this course, always push yourself to maximize that precision wherever possible - in this case that'd mean creating more consistent "footprints" for our buttons by using further subdivisions, so they can consistently maintain the same size. Still, all things considered, this construction came out very well regardless.

Another fairly minor point to call out is that for our drawings in this course, always remember the distinction between cast shadows and form shading. There were numerous places where you leveraged cast shadows, but there were also others where you'd instead fill in the side plane of a given structure - for example on the side of your computer mouse construction's wheel, as well as on the mouse's charging base. It's very easy to confuse the two, and some of my older demos don't stress this as much as they should (because this is one of the areas where we've refined our constructions over time, with those demos having been made before these policies were instituted), but filling the side plane is more akin to form shading, which as discussed here in Lesson 2 should be left out of our constructions. Cast shadows on the other hand - where rather than filling in an existing space, we design a new shape based on the relationship between the form casting that shadow and the surface receiving it, then filling that in, are a very effective tool for helping to convey the relationships between the forms we construct, which is still very relevant to what we're exploring throughout this course.

Speaking of cast shadows, I noticed that the one cast by your utility knife does seem to have gotten away from you a little bit - but I can still see clearly that the underlying construction is very sound. That said, one thing that still could have been done to make the cast shadow appear more correct is to ensure that the the blade/bladeguard that protruded from the handle also cast a shadow on the ground, as you seem to have left that part out. Here's what I mean in case it was unclear.

Anyway, all in all, very well done. I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. Oh, and when you do get to Lesson 7, do be sure to include your orthographic plans with that submission, as they become much more relevant to the critique there.