Good structure, and the how to tell if a model actually learned part is the half that people skip. One thing worth adding to the evaluation section while it is still fresh in study notes: a strong test score is only meaningful if the test set could not have influenced any decision you made. Choosing a threshold, picking features or stopping training based on test performance leaks information, and the resulting number is optimistic in a way no amount of confusion-matrix analysis will reveal. That is what the separate validation split is for, and it is the discipline that survives long after the specific algorithms in a course change. The unsupervised side has a quieter version of the same trap: cluster quality metrics tell you the clusters are compact, not that they correspond to anything a person cares about.