You’ve done this right. I think perhaps what was making you second-guess yourself was the fact that your outdoor shot was soft lighting and your indoor shot was relatively hard lighting.
As mentioned in the lecture notes, in order for lighting to be soft, it must be “diffused”. This can happen in many ways. For example, the clouds act as a diffuser for the sun or a lamp shade may act as a diffuser for the bright artificial light bulb.
However, it is important to remember both the strength of the light source and the strength of the diffuser play a role in the intensity of the light and consequently whether the light be classified as “hard” or “soft”.
For example, your first picture of the flowers would be classified as soft lighting because the clouds were strong enough (thick enough / dark enough) to block the sun’s powerful rays from direct exposure. However, not all cloudy days would be considered soft lighting conditions. If the sun is at its most powerful let’s say around 2oclock and the clouds are thin, enough sun may come through to classify a shot as ‘hard lighting”, even though it would be technically considered a cloudy day.
On a similar note, in your cat picture, the indoor lighting is not very soft. This could be because there are exposed bulbs or lampshades that are too week to contain the powerful light behind them. In these cases, the diffusers fail to act as a strong enough layers and the light would be considered hard as well.
The point is, just because there is a diffuser (i.e. clouds, lampshades etc) that doesn’t mean you’ll automatically achieve soft lighting conditions.
From a composition standpoint, you’ve done a good job on both of these photographs. The only concern I have is with the flower shot. There is a leaf on the left wall of the photograph that was amputated. I think you should have moved your positioning over 1 inch to include that entire leaf. Other than that… Everything looks great!