No need to trigger any heart palpitations - your work here is largely very well done. Starting with your form intersections, while I can see some hesitation in your linework (mainly the intersection lines themselves, although in general I would give yourself just a little bit more time for the planning/preparation phases of the ghosting method when drawing the structural marks for each form), the intersections themselves actually show a strong, well developing understanding of how they each relate to one another in 3D space. I'm especially pleased with how comfortable you appear to be with handling those curved-on-curved intersections - it's normal for students to have the flat-on-flat ones handled by this point, but to still struggle somewhat with the curved surfaces.

Continuing onto your object constructions, you've largely shown a great deal of respect for the focus on precision that is at the core of this lesson. 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.

As a whole, you've largely done a great job of doing just that - I can see that you've applied subdivision where it was required to give yourself more specific information. There are a few things that I want to callout where that precision can be further improved, but as far as this lesson is concerned, I am very pleased with your work.

One area where precision can be improved is in the use of curves. As explained here, curves are inherently kind of vague, and on their own can provide us with a less stable basis for our constructions. For this reason it's best to actually represent these first as boxy forms with straight edges/flat planes, and then round them out a little later. So for example for this handwarmer, it could have been pinned down with flat faces as shown here (in red), then rounded out towards the end as shown here. The key to it is that once the straight/flat structure is set down, we don't really stray too much from this when we round out the corners, so the structural stability still holds up and gives us a more solid result.

Another construction I wanted to briefly touch upon was this jar, where I feel like you put a lot of effort into the subdivisions here, but you kind of missed some of the more important landmarks and their positioning - likely because you were so focused on being really granular, that you lost track of the overall purpose of what you were doing. There are a couple things I wanted to draw your attention to for this one:

• Firstly, the far corner of the lid is misplaced. As shown here, while we could certainly use the mirroring technique to transfer that corner across the central axis of the object, it's actually not strictly required because the corner on the right side of the drawing (closer to the viewer) sits right on the diagonal (marked in red). More specifically, it sits at the intersection of the green, red, and purple lines. Fortunately, we have a twin for the red diagonal on the opposite side, and similarly the same green line drawn across gives us the same position on the opposite side of the object. Technically the purple lines aren't required at all, but they basically signify the position along the width dimension of the object where the same corner would sit. As you can see (where I've marked it out in blue), you placed the corner a little away from this, because this was a scenario where you actually didn't use the precision that was available to figure out its specific location, and appear to have used more arbitrary estimation instead.

• On this page (on the left side, written in purple), I also called out an important landmark - basically where this object gets split into two pieces (the lid and the body) - which was not given a specific position using subdivision. This kind of important landmark is basically where we want to focus our attention. It's not about simply taking a bounding box and subdividing it as much as possible - it's about finding a specific set of subdivisions that will clearly break up the object into its major elements first, then breaking those down to find further specific landmarks. In this case, the lid falls somewhere between 1/4 and 1/5th of the total height of the object. This puts us in a somewhat tricky situation - we have subdivision patterns to get us to 1/4 (or 0.25), and even ones to get us to 1/5ths (or 0.2) (as per the archived blogpost that was linked in the lesson, but we don't have anything for, say, 0.225 - that would be more like 9/40ths, which is pretty crazy. Now you could get 1/4, then subdivide it into 10ths and put your mark at 9/10 within that smaller section, and that might actually be a feasible option. Alternatively, if you end up with proportions that are just asking way too much, we can fall back to the simple matter that reproducing our reference images perfectly is not really that important in the grand scheme of our goals. Rather, we could simplify it by saying that the cap is at 1/4 or 1/5 (I'd probably choose the latter), produce our proportional orthographic study based on that layout, and move forward from there. Why this is better than just eyeballing it is that it is, as the theme has always been, more precise. It allows us to find specific locations and merely "connect the dots".

• I'm breaking this off into another bullet point, but in essence that increase in precision would have helped us to avoid the issue called out in blue on the right side of the image, where you drew the edge marked out in red with was on way sharper of an incline than it should have been. This could have been avoided by finding the correct fractional position along all 3 of the major vertical edges of the bounding box.

So! That about covers it. By and large you're doing great, just make sure that when you go to town on the subdivisions, that you're doing so with consideration for what the major landmarks are first and foremost.

I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete.