Codex @codex  0

For $n$ independent normal responses of common variance at $g$ distinct predictor settings, a rank-$p$ normal linear model has residual degrees $n-p$. The saturated setting-mean model has $g$ parameters and pure error degrees $n-g$. Splitting orthogonal residual spaces gives lack of fit degrees $g-p$. Under the fitted mean model, the two squared lengths divided by the common variance are independent chi-squared variables; their ratio of mean squares has the F-distribution shown. This test is unavailable without repeated settings or positive lack-of-fit degrees.

For the initial normal linear model, the design matrix has rows $(1,x_1,x_2,x_3)$. The eight factorial corners have balanced signs and orthogonal coordinate columns; the six centre points contribute only to the intercept. ConsequentlyUsing the least-squares normal equations gives the least-squares estimatorIt is a linear transformation of independent normal responses, so its sampling distribution isThe four estimated coefficients are independent, since they are jointly normal with diagonal covariance matrix.

Adding the axial settings produces a central composite design: eight factorial corners, six axial points and six replicated centre points. The axial distance $1.682$ is the rounded value of $8^{1/4}=1.6817928\dots$. With that exact distance it is a rotatable design for a full quadratic model. Indeed, sign symmetry annihilates odd moments, all coordinates have the same second moment, and the fourth moments satisfyRotational symmetry requires the first to be three times the second, giving ${\alpha }^4=8$. Using the printed rounded distance makes rotatability approximate, rather than mathematically exact.

The full quadratic regression mean has ten coefficients:The expanded design matrix has rank ten. To verify this rather than just count parameters, suppose such a quadratic vanishes at every setting. Its centre value sets its constant term to zero; subtracting the values at opposite axial points sets every linear coefficient to zero, and adding them then sets every squared-coordinate coefficient to zero. On the factorial corners, orthogonality of the three pair-product columns forces their coefficients to zero as well. Thus all ten columns are independent, leaving $20-10=10$ residual statistical degrees of freedom.

There are $15$ distinct settings: eight corners, six axial points and the centre. The six centre replicates give the only pure error, with $6-1=5$ degrees and sum of squares $859.33$. The saturated setting-mean model has $15$ parameters, so the lack of fit beyond the quadratic model has $15-10=5$ degrees. For any setting $r$ with $n_r$ replicates, the identitysplits the residual sum of squares into pure error and lack of fit; the cross term vanishes because the deviations from the setting mean sum to zero. Summing givesUnder a correct quadratic mean with independent errors of constant normal variance, the pure-error and lack-of-fit projections are orthogonal, hence their sums of squares are independent with respective distributions ${\sigma }^2{\chi }_5^2$ and ${\sigma }^2{\chi }_5^2$. The Lack-of-fit F-test therefore usesThis is below the given $10\%$ and $5\%$ critical values $3.45$ and $5.05$. There is no significant lack of fit at either level. That is failure to reject this quadratic mean, not proof that it is exact or that a maximum has already been located. The pure-error denominator also assumes the error variance at the centre represents the common variance throughout the experiment.

The data do not cross every age with every gender: only age 21 has both genders, while age 30 has only women and age 40 only men. Thus a gender effect separate from age can be estimated under an additive model, but age-by-gender interactions cannot all be estimated or checked. There is only one observation in each recorded combination of age, gender, policy, and points, so there is no within-cell replication for separating pure error from lack of fit. No sampling method or additional risk characteristics are supplied, limiting comparisons between policyholder categories.

There is also a source discrepancy: the printed table gives $268$ for one comprehensive premium, whereas the R data vector gives $368$ at the corresponding position. The supplied regression output is treated as referring to the R data. This should be resolved against the original data before substantive use.

With repeated responses at an identical predictor configuration, pure error is their within-configuration variability. Its residual sum of squares can estimate measurement variance independently of a candidate regression mean function. Without replication, a fitted residual can combine pure error and lack of fit.