Starting with your form intersections, these are by and large quite well done. You mentioned in your submission comments (which went further into self-critique than they should have - stick to questions only in the future, so as not to contaminate the feedback you receive) that you had difficulty with the intersections between rounded surfaces, but from what I can see here you've demonstrated a good understanding of how to break those relationships down into the relationships between the distinct surfaces, and pieced them together well. I'm sure they were challenging, but you did ultimately execute them correctly.

My only concern here is in the linework itself - you have a tendency to get scratchier when you draw your intersection lines. Remember - every mark you freehand should still be executed using the ghosting method, which effectively forces you to do all your thinking first and determine the purpose of a given mark, before actually executing it on the page.

Moving onto your object constructions, I can see that overall you have done a fair bit to hold to one of the core focuses of this exercise - 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. You have by and large leveraged these subdivisions quite effectively throughout your constructions, and while I will identify some places where you perhaps hit the limits on how much precision you were willing to work with at the time (and thus cases where that precision could have been pushed farther, given more time), as a whole I am pleased with how you've approached this important aspect of the lesson.

Before we look at your individual constructions, let's take a look at your question - "How do you divide a box at an arbitrary point along the box?"

If we really think about what you're asking, the problem itself actually becomes very, very simple. If you want to split a box into two pieces at some arbitrary point along one of its dimensions, you simply draw along its surface, across the top plane, along the back, coming back around the bottom and again along the front, completing the circuit and splitting the box into two distinct sections.

And if we want that cut to be aligned to the major axes of the box, then we simply ensure that those lines we've drawn are oriented towards the box's various vanishing points.

The thing is however, that what I've described above is not precise. It is, by the nature of your question, arbitrary, and in that sense, what you're asking for is not actually useful in the context of this lesson. Your question is still a good, and important one however, and the fact that you tied it back to the mirroring technique makes a lot of sense. After all, the mirroring technique has us start with any mark (arbitrary or otherwise), and then has us find the precise match for it, mirrored across a given axis. So while the first mark is not necessarily precise (in that it doesn't need to be), it is its relationship with its resulting reflection that gives it some precision. On its own, it's just an arbitrary mark, unless it was already drawn with some precision, like the kind we can get from subdivision.

But, as you noted, subdivision is not always convenient - in order to place a mark, say, 11/15ths down the length of the box, then that's going to result in a great deal of extra linework that we do not strictly want to pursue. If it really matters that the granularity of our precision is that specific, then we may well want to go as far as is needed to achieve those 11/15ths - but this isn't always necessary.

Precision comes down to the fact that you've made certain choices, and that it is those choices that are driving where your marks go. When we eyeball or approximate things, we're not working with precision - we're loosely trying to capture a vague relationship that we've observed or intended, but which isn't defined in any specific terms. An important part of the precision therefore is how we choose to interpret the object - and doing so with a little orthographic plan, as you've done throughout many of your constructions here, matters quite a bit, because it takes vague estimations and turns them into specific decisions. The decision that a handle will be placed between the 1/4th and 3/4ths points along the length of the bounding box, for instance.

This also means that when we're putting together that orthographic plan, we can choose to simplify some of those proportions. This isn't always possible, because we may have many different pieces that need to be arranged, and moving some things around may impact the relationship with other elements. But, there are definitely circumstances where you can simplify 11/15ths to 10/15ths, and thus 2/3rds, making our very complex problem vastly more straightforward, while losing a limited amount of accuracy to the reference image. And most importantly, we do this at the plan stage - not while we're working on the construction itself. Once we start our construction, our decisions should already be made. If you end up finding that some decision was overlooked, then you should step back from your construction and reevaluate your plan and figure out how to account for the discrepancy, rather than doing it all live on the drawing itself.

Now, I've obviously addressed your question with some considerable length, but I think it was a good question that ultimately ties into this lesson very well, and that my feedback here is as valuable as whatever feedback I'd have given for your drawings - but, since I've already put a good deal of time into this, I'm going to keep the rest of my feedback brief and to the point.

There are a few important points I want to draw to your attention:

• Firstly, you mentioned that you were switching up pens a lot, due to them getting messy. That's not a problem, but I did notice that there appeared to be a clear distinction between your subdivision lines and the drawing of the object itself, which suggests that you may have more purposely decided to use a different pen. This was specifically mentioned as something to avoid in the instructions here.

• Secondly, I did want to call out an example where you ultimately hit your limits on how much precision you were willing to incorporate. Here on your remote control construction, there are some distinct gaps between the buttons' footprints and the subdivision lines that were meant to establish their position. In the plan view you were a little tighter and more specific with the intended relationship between the buttons and the subdivisions you'd laid out, although we can already see some little signs of sloppiness. It seems to me you may have been getting tired at that point, and may have been more inclined to work through it quickly, rather than ensuring that these last touches were done to the best of your current ability.

• As I mentioned in your intersection lines, where they tended to be quite scratchy. I have seen plenty of signs throughout your work here that you've been entirely happy to work rather haphazardly when it came to your freehanded linework. We can see this quite a bit on this measuring tape for instance. Now, it is completely normal for freehanded ellipses to be loose and tricky to work with in this lesson, but I do think that as a result of this, you may have been less inclined to fall back to the principles of markmaking from earlier in the course. It's that much easier, when we already have marks that aren't 100% as we'd like them to be, to then put less into executing the later ones to the best of our ability. To that point, I strongly encourage you to, if possible, pick up one of the cheaper master ellipse templates for the wheel challenge. They're limited to fairly small sizes, which means you'll end up drawing smaller wheels, but they make a considerable difference. They're also sufficient for the most important uses of ellipses in Lesson 7. If you're unsure of what I mean by this, you can check out the Lesson 0 Tools video.

As a whole, you've done pretty well, but I can see it quite plainly that you definitely could have done even better, with a bit more time and care being invested into your linework. Fortunately, you'll have ample opportunity to demonstrate that in Lesson 7 (which is like this lesson, on steroids), but there's one more challenge before you get there. I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete.