The expression $[f_1] * \ldots * [f_n]$ only makes sense because Munkres has proved in Theorem 51.2 that $*$ is associative. The following considerations will prove this again.
Let us consider arbitrary paths $f_1, \ldots, f_n : I \to X$ such that $f_{i-1}(1) = f_i(0)$ for $i=2,\ldots, n$. For any partition $\mathbf a = (a_0,\ldots, a_n)$ of $I$ with $0 = a_0 < a_1 < \ldots < a_n = 1$ we define
$$f_\mathbf a : I \to X, f_{\mathbf a}(t) = f_i \Big( \frac{t-a_{i-1}}{a_i -a_{i-1}} \Big) \text{ for } t \in [a_{i-1},a_i] .$$
This is a well-defined continuous map.
Theorem.
The path-homotopy equivalence class $[f_\mathbf a]$ does not depend on the choice of the partition $
\mathbf a$.
Let us start with a simple lemma.
Lemma. Each map $u : I \to I$ with $u(0) = 0$ and $u(1) = 1$ is homotopic to the identity map rel. $\{0,1\}$.
Proof. Define $H : I \times I \to I, H(s,t) = (1-t) u(s) + ts$. This is a homotopy from $u$ to $id$ which keeps the points $0, 1$ fixed. $\phantom{xx} \square$
We now prove the Theorem.
Let $\mathbf b = (b_0,\ldots, b_n)$ be another partition of $I$.
Define $u : I \to I$ by
$$u(t) = b_{i-1} + \frac{b_i- b_{i-1}}{a_i - a_{i-1}}(t- a_{i-1}) \text { for } t \in [a_{i-1},a_i] .$$
This is a well-defined continuous map which maps $[a_{i-1},a_i]$ affinely onto $[b_{i-1},b_i]$. We have
$$f_\mathbf a = f_\mathbf b \circ u.$$
In fact, for $t \in [a_{i-1},a_i]$ we get
$$(f_\mathbf b \circ u)(t) = f_\mathbf b \left(b_{i-1} + \frac{b_i- b_{i-1}}{a_i - a_{i-1}}(t- a_{i-1})\right)= f_i\left(\frac{b_{i-1} + \frac{b_i- b_{i-1}}{a_i - a_{i-1}}(t- a_{i-1}) - b_{i-1}}{b_i - b_{i-1}}\right) \\ = f_i\left(\frac{t- a_{i-1}}{a_i - a_{i-1}} \right) = f_\mathbf a (t) .$$
Since $u \simeq id$ rel. $\{0,1\}$, we see that
$$f_\mathbf a = f_\mathbf b \circ u \simeq f_\mathbf b \circ id = f_\mathbf b \text{ rel. } \{0,1\} . \phantom{xx} \square $$
Corollary. The product $*$ is associative on path-homotopy equivalence classes.
Proof. Consider $f_1, f_2, f_3: I \to X$ such that $f_1(1) = f_2(0)$ and $f_2(1) = f_3(0)$. With $\mathbf a =(0,\frac 1 2, \frac 3 4, 1)$ and $\mathbf b =(0,\frac 1 4, \frac 1 2, 1)$ we have $f_\mathbf a = f_1 * (f_2 * f_3)$ and $f_\mathbf b = (f_1 * f_2) * f_3$. We conclude
$$[f_1] *([f_2] * [f_3]) = [f_1 * (f_2 * f_3)] = [f_\mathbf a] = [f_\mathbf b] = [(f_1 * f_2) * f_3] = ([f_1] * [f_2]) * [f_3] .\phantom{x} \square$$
Given $f_1,\ldots, f_n$ as above, a representative $F$ of $[f_1] * \ldots * [f_n]$ can be constructed by successively computing $F_1 = f_1$, $F_{i+1} = F_i * f_{i+1}$. Then $F = F_n$ is the desired path. By construction (formally we have to use induction to prove it), we get $F = f_\mathbf p$ with $\mathbf p = (p_0,\ldots,p_n)$, where $p_0 = 0$ and $p_i = 2^{i-n}$ for $i = 1,\ldots, n$. For $n = 2$ this means $\mathbf p = (0, \frac 1 2,1)$, for
$n = 3$ it means $\mathbf p = (0, \frac 1 4, \frac 1 2,1)$, etc.
Corollary. Let $\mathbf a = (a_0,\ldots,a_n)$ be any partition of $I$. Then $[f_1] * \ldots * [f_n] = [f_\mathbf a]$.
Proof. $[f_1] * \ldots * [f_n] = [f_\mathbf p] = [f_\mathbf a]$. $\phantom{xx} \square$
Let us now prove Munkres's Theorem 51.3.
Munkres takes the "positive linear" map of $I$ onto $[a_{i-1},a_i]$ which is
$$\phi_i : I \to [a_{i-1},a_i], \phi_i(t) = a_{i-1} + t(a_i - a_{i-1}) $$
and then defines
$$f_i = f \mid_{[a_{i-1},a_i]} \circ \phi_i .$$
We have proved above that
$$[f_1] * \ldots * [f_n] = [f_\mathbf a] .$$
On $[a_{i-1},a_i]$ we have
$$f_\mathbf a(t) = f_i\Big(\frac{t-a_{i-1}}{a_i -a_{i-1}}\Big) = f\Big(\phi_i\Big(\frac{t-a_{i-1}}{a_i -a_{i-1}}\Big)\Big) = f\Big(a_{i-1} + \frac{t-a_{i-1}}{a_i -a_{i-1}}(a_i - a_{i-1} \Big) = f(t) .$$
This shows that $f_\mathbf a = f$, i.e.
$$[f_1] * \ldots * [f_n] = [f] .$$
We want $f_i$ to be the $i^{th}$ segment of the path $f$. The easiest way to do this is to restrict the domain of $f$ by looking at $f:[a_{i-1},a_i]\rightarrow X$. However, Munkres defines all paths to have a domain of $I=[0,1]$
So what this theorem is stating is "break the path into $n$ subpaths. Then the homotopy equivalence of the entire path is the concatenation of each subpath's equivalence."
I think if you can prove the $n=2$ and $n=3$ cases, you will see it generalize easily!
– Jacob Apr 15 '24 at 15:15