Starting with your organic intersections, there's one thing that stands out to me, but I'm actually not sure if I'm seeing what I think I am. Basically, I'm trying to determine the order in which your forms were drawn.

When working on this exercise, we're basically building up a stack of forms, working from bottom up. We can only ever work bottom-up because we have to draw the silhouette of each form so it settles believably on top of the pile that already exists. If we were to try and sneak a form underneath one that has already been drawn, there is no way for that original form's silhouette to reflect the fact that it's resting on top of this new one. Looking at your work, I'm seeing a few instances like this where a form feels as though it's ignoring something it should reasonably be touching and interacting with.

Here I've colour coded some of your sausage forms. While the blue one should realistically be interacting with the red one (either pressing up against it or drooping down onto it), and the green one should be resting on top of the orange one somehow. But both of these pairs appear to exist entirely oblivious of their neighbour.

Moving onto the demonstrations you followed along with, your observation here is somewhat lacking - there are plenty of things you're missing. For example, looking at the masses built up along the running rat's back, there are two distinct forms, one piled on top of the other, resulting in two distinct bumps with a pinch in between where one sits on the other. In your drawing however, if we follow the top edge of those masses' silhouette, we get a single continuous stroke.

Looking at the donkey, the shape of the eye socket is entirely different (you've drawn a diamond), and the mass along the neck is also entirely different. These are just a few particularly notable cases, but these smaller issues in carefully observing your reference do pile up to yield drastically different results.

Observing these demonstrations is definitely much easier because the information from the reference images is stripped away, leaving only the key forms and shapes you need to focus on. And so, understandably, when you get into your actual animal studies, the observational issues more severely undermine your results.

Observation all comes down to an investment of time - short term, investing more time in a given study, and long term (doing so over the course of many studies, ie: practice).

Now, looking at your application of the principles covered in my critique, it's a bit hit and miss. Looking at the backside of this bunny you're definitely building up those masses by wrapping them around one another (though I would recommend that you try and make those sharp corners a little more rounded). You still however have plenty of areas where you make some pretty big mistakes - like the front neck mass of this lamb being way too complex, with no real clarity as to how it exists as its own, complete additional mass.

Also, when you add additional masses to the legs, you pretty consistently just add shapes with arbitrary curves all around, rather than considering how those forms wrap around the existing structure as shown in this ant leg demo and in this dog leg demo (both of which were shared in my lesson 4 critique).

Now, you work has wholly improved over the last submission, but there is a lot of room for growth and your observational skills, especially when drawing from reference photos are really getting in the way. You draw too much from memory, and it doesn't feel that you look frequently enough at your references.

I don't want to get further into this, because it really is a matter of practice and you investing time in the right areas - including processing the information in the feedback you receive (and I strongly urge you to repeatedly reread the original critique to fully ingest all that was explained there, because I'm not going to be repeating it here).

I'll assign another set of revisions below, so work through them and take your time.