The first thing that springs to my mind is the 10 year age difference. Added to that, women tend to live 3 to 4 years longer than men. So I guess whichever option you go for, you might want to make provision for a continuing income to your wife on your death (unless she will have her own pension?).
I think option 6 looks reasonable.
Option 1 plus the Term Assurance might be attractive, but you don’t say what the amount of the life cover would be. But remember that the life cover ceases at age 85, and your average life expectancy (based on age 55 now) is circa 30 years. So it’s a 50/50 chance that you might die after age 85 and thus no income or lump sum for your wife.
The other issue is the state of health/ family history of both parties. If you are in good health and you have a good family history, then the odds are that you may well live beyond age 85. Even though 10years younger, if say your wife’s family history was similar then there is a risk that the life cover is expired and if say you died at age 86, then your wife is 76 with no income and no life assurance.
I think it’s all about whether you want certainty (say option 6) or are prepared to take some level of risk.