Starting with your form intersections, you're making good progress when it comes to understanding how flat surfaces intersect with other flat surfaces, although you are still running into some trouble when you throw curved surfaces into the mix. That's about where I'd expect a student to be - grasping the flat stuff, but still struggling a little when it comes to figuring out the far more complex curved-on-curved intersections.

Here are some notes on one of your pages. Intersections seem complex (and they are), but we can break them down into individual components by looking at the specific surfaces that are intersecting at any given point. If we look at the box/sphere intersection right at the bottom, you ended up drawing that one with something of an arbitrarily changing line, that's got corners and curves but no clear logic/reasoning behind why each one was used at a particular location.

Our intersection features two overall forms - a sphere and a box. The sphere has an infinite array of different "slices" to it, each of them operating at a different orientation. The box however has only six distinct planes, two of which are relevant in the visible portion of this intersection. If we look at each of those planes, based on their orientation in space we can find the two corresponding slices of the sphere that run parallel in 3D space to it (as shown in the upper right with the blue/green slices corresponding to the blue/green box planes), we can identify the two specific curves, one for each plane, which will in turn meet right at the edge between the planes. This gives us a location where it makes sense to have a sharp corner between those sections, as it's at the edge that we jump from one fundamentally different plane to another.

It gets a little more complicated when we're dealing with two curving surfaces (like the cone and sphere), but it still follows the same premise. The main difference is that we no longer have a clear edge to provide us with a point to jump from one distinct section of this intersection to another. Instead, when everything is curving, we end up with smooth transitions - but the rest of the process is still the same. We look at the relevant pieces (in this case, we'll go from the curve of the sphere to the curve of the cone, back to the curve of the sphere), and in combining all of these simple C curves, we end up with a more complex S curve.

Where the first part (flat+curved) may make a lot more sense based on this explanation, the second (curve+curve) will take more practical experience for it to really make sense. Fortunately there is time for that, and another page of these will be assigned with Lesson 7.

Whew - I've spent a fair bit of time already on the form intersections, but fortunately your object constructions throughout this lesson are by and large pretty well done, with a few little issues and improvements I will suggest. The thing about this lesson as a whole is that it focuses on the concept of "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.

There are definitely a ton of ways in which you've built up precision in your constructions here, but there are also ways in which it could have been built yet further:

• Establishing more complete footprints. If we look at this nintendo DS, you usually identified the center point of different features (like the speakers holes), and you identified the center position of each of the 4 buttons along the right side, but actually establishing the whole footprint would have been even better. As shown here I highlighted many different letters (A-M) of positions that could have been identified as specific proportions along a given dimension of the object (for example, maybe H sits 2/5ths of the way down the upper half of the DS). Once all of these are pinned down, you can then build the desired structures - the speakers, the buttons, etc. in specific, predetermined positions, rather than eyeballing/approximating it.

• As shown here, instead of jumping so soon into establishing the curves of the base, establishing the footprint with a series of straight edges first would give you a clearer set of positions to identify and build up with symmetry (again, denoted with letters down there), which in turn be identified in specific terms. While you mentioned some understanding of the concepts here, this is really where those principles are most useful - taking something organic and curved, and then breaking it down into a chain of straight edges that we can actually work with, then rounding it all out again right before the end.

• In this mouse, I can't really see any signs of you thinking through or defining the base/footprint of the object along that lower plane, or really using any of the approaches we demonstrated in the computer mouse demo. From what I can see here, you put down a box, and subdivided it, and then just kind of drew by eye from there. Fortunately this is not something I see in the rest of your constructions - this object may very much neglect the core principles of the lesson, but it is alone in that.

There's one quick last thing I wanted to mention - when working with filled areas of solid black, try to reserve it only for cast shadows, and avoid the temptation to fill in the side planes of existing forms with black, as this is more akin to form shading, which as explained here is not to play a role in our drawings for this course. The key point to always keep in mind is that most of the time a cast shadow will need to be drawn/designed as a completely new shape, rather than one already present that you simply fill in. This is because it is the specific design of that shadow shape that establishes the relationship between the form casting it and the surface receiving it. If you find yourself looking to fill in a shape that already exists, then you definitely need to give it more thought and consider whether it is truly a cast shadow.

So! I am going to go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. You definitely do have a lot more you can eke out of the process, and a lot of it's going to come down to allowing yourself to invest more time in the process. This is basically what's going to make the difference in Lesson 7, where those drawings can easily take many hours each. On your drawings here, I'm noticing singular dates/times, which suggests to me that each one was completed in one sitting. While that may well be fine, always remember that it is not how much time you have that day to offer your drawing which determines how long the construction will take. It is the complexity of the object which sets that standard, and if you do not have enough time to offer it in one sitting, it is your responsibility to spread it out across as many sessions and days as are required of you.