I'm glad to hear you were able to get those conditions diagnosed! I've definitely been hearing a lot about people who've struggled with ADHD symptoms but weren't diagnosed until adulthood, and the kind of differences it made for them to have this thing that could at least be addressed in some manner, rather than just the nebulous feeling that you're not good enough.

Anyway, onto the work. Starting with your cylinders around arbitrary minor axes, by and large you're doing pretty well. You're varying your rates of foreshortening, experimenting with orientation and length, and you're definitely working hard to keep improving your ellipses throughout. You're doing a pretty good job of achieving smooth, evenly shaped ellipses, although going forward try bringing down the number of times you're drawing through your ellipses. We want to stay in the range of 2-3 turns of the ellipse, but 2 is best to avoid losing track of which ellipse we're trying to draw.

Another point I wanted to mention is that for the side edges, it does appear that you may not be as attentive to applying the ghosting method's steps here - including laying down your intended start/end points in the planning phase. Investing your time into the planning/preparation stages will help reinforce your control while still allowing you to prioritize a confident execution in that last phase.

The last thing I wanted to mention in regards to this section is something that was not really addressed in the material, but was rather left as something for students to either pick up on themselves, or for me to explain here in critique. Foreshortening - that thing which gives us visual cues as to how much of the form's length in a given dimension exists right there for us to see on the page, and how much exists in the "unseen" dimension of depth which cannot be captured on the page - manifests in two main ways. There's the shift in scale from one end to the other, where due to the convergence of the side edges the far end ends up smaller in its overall scale. Then there's the shift in degree, where the far end becomes wider proportionally than the end closer to the viewer.

The thing is, since both of these manifestations represent the same thing - capturing how much more of the form exists in the "depth" dimension - they should operate in tandem. So for example if we look at 103 here, we can see that there's definitely some more noticeable scale shift due to the convergence of the side edges, but there isn't much noticeable degree shift - they stay roughly around the same width. In this case, you would want that farther end to match by increasing its degree, roughly in tandem with the scale shift. When this is missing, the viewer will notice something being off, but won't necessarily be able to identify what it is specifically.

Continuing onto your cylinders in boxes, overall you've done pretty decently here, although there are some points to pay closer attention to. This exercise is really all about helping develop students' understanding of how to construct boxes which feature two opposite faces which are proportionally square, regardless of how the form is oriented in space. We do this not by memorizing every possible configuration, but rather by continuing to develop your subconscious understanding of space through repetition, and through analysis (by way of the line extensions).

Where the box challenge's line extensions helped to develop a stronger sense of how to achieve more consistent convergences in our lines, here we add three more lines for each ellipse: the minor axis, and the two contact point lines. In checking how far off these are from converging towards the box's own vanishing points, we can see how far off we were from having the ellipse represent a circle in 3D space, and in turn how far off we were from having the plane that encloses it from representing a square.

In applying the line extensions correctly and consistently throughout the set, each page gives us an idea of where our approach can be adjusted to improve our results for the next one. We just have to make sure that our line extensions are indeed correct. I did notice some cases - they were usually clustered to specific pages, so it may have been a matter of not being as focused on one session as compared to another - where you were really far off in establishing the minor axis of your ellipses, as shown here. This is actually not uncommon - due to the nature of the exercise, where we're relying on the box to establish our ellipses, it's easy to assume that the ellipses we've drawn match the intended minor axis line (which should be running down the length of the cylinder and converging with the edges of the box that go off in that direction). This can cause us to be careless and simply not check what is fairly obvious if we're looking for it - that the minor axis is way off.

Remember that this does not mean that the ellipse was wrong - but that the box, and the proportions we estimated for it - were incorrect. This is precisely what we're looking to identify, so we can avoid that for the next set.

Anyway! All in all, good work - just take a bit more time with your work and be attentive to those minor axes. I'll go ahead and mark this challenge as complete.