Starting with your form intersections, your work here is by and large coming along well. You're showing a strong understanding of the relationships between your forms - most of all the cases with intersections involving two flat surfaces, as well as those with one flat surface and one curved surface. Where you may still have room for improvement however is with the intersections between surfaces that are both curved, although I only really saw one example of this across the three pages, so it could be a one-off issue. Regardless, that is the most difficult type of intersection, and one that I still do expect students to have some difficulty with at this stage.

I've drawn this correction for that intersection, although I find that this diagram helps students better understand how to think through this kind of complex intersection.

Continuing onto your object constructions, by and large you've done a great job of holding to the core principles of this lesson, although there are a couple little nitpicks I'm going to call out. At its core, this lesson is a big shift from the previous ones, in that we go from working from the inside-out (in that we start small and build upon it, each step being able to account for whatever proportional mistakes we may have made up until that point, so that even if our proportions may be out of whack, we can still achieve a solid construction. Here, we start shifting to working outside-in, which requires us to do a lot more analysis from the get-go in order to achieve our goal: an increase in 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 being very patient and mindful with your constructions, and in leveraging subdivision as effectively as you have here, you've done a great job in increasing the precision in how you approach this work. While you haven't included any orthographic studies with your submission here, the level of specificity of your constructions does suggest to me that you may well have still used them. This concept of analyzing the proportions of our objects ahead of time and breaking them down as shown here in the computer mouse demo can be very powerful - and I wanted to take a moment to point out how these can be used even more effectively than currently shown in the lesson (this'll eventually be incorporated into the lesson material as the overhaul progresses forward, but for now those receiving official critique get a sneak-peak so as to work through the lessons as effectively as possible).

So the computer mouse demo introduces the concept by laying out a rectangle and separating it into quadrants, so that we're given smaller reference points we can use to better judge the positioning of the various landmarks of our object. What helps take this even further is to actually lay down more specific subdivisions to decide where each landmark should go. In that sense, the subdivisions are much more particular.

To give you an example of this, if you were constructing a drawer, you might place the handle as spanning between the 2/5ths mark and the 3/5ths mark, and subdivide the orthographic study accordingly. The big advantage is that it allows us to make all our decisions before we even bother to build up the 3D construction, and when we do move onto that stage, we don't have to think about anything beyond just repeating what we did in two dimensions, since the same subdivision/mirroring/etc techniques all apply in both. It's like laying out a plan of action, so that when it comes time to construct in 3D, you're just following a recipe you've already laid out.

The last point on this I wanted to make is that it is a matter of making decisions - we're not being hyper accurate. In observing the drawer from the previous example, we might see that the handle is actually between the 19/50ths and 31/50ths marks. Subdividing that far would of course be extremely tedious - but if there aren't any other features that depend on such small spatial relationships, we can simply decide to round those proportions up to 2/5ths and 3/5ths respectively, saving ourselves a lot of hardship while still maintaining what is essentially the same structure.

Alright! Moving on, here are the two little points I wanted to call out:

• Firstly, as explained here in the tools section, as mentioned in the points about "clean-up" passes you were not to go back over your work with a thicker pen. Reason being, tracing over linework in this manner tends to make us focus way too much on how we're just drawing lines in two dimensions, across a flat page, and breaks us away from thinking about them as edges in 3D space.

• Secondly, I noticed a number of cases where you could have leveraged the points here about dealing with curves, but you seemed to overlook that part. Starting your structures out with flat surfaces and straight edges, then rounding them out towards the end, would have helped a lot with the ashtray and iron.

Anyway, with that I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. Keep up the good work.