The Anderson factors are means for establishing premeditation and deliberation. In People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, the Supreme Court described three types of evidence that indicate premeditation and deliberation. "(1) Facts about how and what defendant did prior to the actual killing which show that the defendant was engaged in activity directed toward, and explicable as intended to result in, the killing-what may be characterized as 'planning' activity; (2) facts about the defendant's prior relationship and/or conduct with the victim from which the jury could reasonably infer a 'motive' to kill the victim, which inference of motive, together with facts of type (1) or (3), would in turn support an inference that killing was the result of 'a pre-existing reflection' and 'careful thought and weighing of considerations'' rather than 'mere unconsidered or rash impulse hastily executed' citation; (3) facts about the nature of the killing from which the jury could infer that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a 'preconceived design' to take his victim's life in a particular way for a 'reason' which the jury can reasonably infer from facts of type (1) or (2)." (Id. at pp. 26-27.) "The Anderson factors are not the exclusive means for establishing premeditation and deliberation. . . . for example, an execution-style killing may be committed with such calculation that the manner of killing will support a jury finding of premeditation and deliberation, despite little or no evidence of planning and motive." (People v. Lenart (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1107, 1127.) "The Anderson factors do not establish normative rules, but instead provide guidelines for our analysis. . . . 'The Anderson analysis was intended as a framework to assist reviewing courts in assessing whether the evidence supports an inference that the killing resulted from preexisting reflection and weighing of considerations. It did not refashion the elements of first degree murder or alter the substantive law in any way.' " (People v. Sanchez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 32.) "In identifying categories of evidence bearing on premeditation and deliberation, Anderson did not purport to establish an exhaustive list that would exclude all other types and combinations of evidence that could support a finding of premeditation and deliberation. . . . the Anderson factors, while helpful for purposes of review, are not a sine qua non to finding first degree premeditated murder, nor are they exclusive." (People v. Perez, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1125.) Nevertheless, although the Anderson factors do not have to be present in any "special combination" or accorded a "particular weight" (People v. Sanchez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 33), the factors do guide our determination of whether the murder occurred as a "result of preexisting reflection and weighing of considerations rather than mere unconsidered or rash impulse. " (People v. Perez, at p. 1125; People v. Hovarter, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1019.)