基于ANOVA结果撰写结论

Conclusion on CTR ANOVA (α=0.05)

• Overall effect: CTR differs significantly across ad copy variants (F(3,156)=5.9, p=0.001). Model assumptions were met (homogeneity: Levene p=0.20; normality: Shapiro p>0.05).
• Effect size: η²=0.10, indicating a moderate practical effect (ad copy explains ~10% of CTR variance).
• Pairwise results (Tukey HSD): C3 achieved significantly higher CTR than C2 and C1 (p<0.05). No other pairwise differences were significant in the provided results.
• Means: C3=3.0%, C2=2.6%, C1=2.1%, C4=2.4%. Relative uplift for C3 vs C2 is +0.4 percentage points (~15%), and vs C1 is +0.9 percentage points (~43%).

Recommendation

• Prioritize deploying ad copy C3 to maximize CTR.
• Deprioritize or iterate on C1; consider optimization for C2.
• Conduct a targeted follow-up comparison of C3 vs C4 to determine if C3 is meaningfully better than C4 (not established here).
• Track downstream metrics (e.g., conversion rate, CPA) to confirm that CTR gains translate into business impact.

结论摘要

• 订单完成时长在不同结账流程间存在显著差异：F(2,210)=8.3, p<0.001，效应大小适中（η²=0.07）。
• 事后比较（Tukey）显示：流程C显著快于流程B和流程A；流程A与流程B之间差异不显著。
• 均值对比：A=4.8分钟，B=4.2分钟，C=3.9分钟。相较于C，A多0.9分钟（约+19%），B多0.3分钟（约+7%）。
• 模型假设成立：方差齐性（Levene p=0.11）与正态性（Shapiro p>0.05）均未被拒绝。
• 退款率在三种流程间无显著差异：A=2.0%、B=1.9%、C=1.7%；F(2,210)=1.2, p=0.30。

业务结论与建议

• 流程C在不增加退款风险的情况下，显著缩短订单完成时长，应作为默认结账流程优先推广。
• 预计效率提升：相较A缩短约0.9分钟（≈19%），相较B缩短约0.3分钟（≈7%）。
• 执行建议：分阶段上线流程C，并持续监测完成时长、转化率和退款率；对A与B的优化优先级可降低，资源聚焦于巩固和微调流程C。