You're going to die tomorrow (sorry!) and your spouse knows nothing about investing.

It has been predetermined (for whatever reason) that (b) no index trackers are allowed
....
But an index fits the bill perfectly for the problem as stated.

But I find them immoral. If there is any company you would not invest in because you find either management or the business line odious, any at all, you can't be an index investor. Indeed, it is your responsibility not to be. Plus, it may not be critical in this context, but it just plain annoys me that by construction they have two huge flaws that mean you'll forever underperform a dartboard.

Below are my general thoughts on this subject, triggered by the post but not directed at the poster.

Dictating from the grave that your spouse should not invest in an index is more immoral. You have no right to make your spouse's financial life more difficult than it needs to be. If you want to fight immorality, do it when you are alive and in a way that is effective and actually makes a difference. Don't impose a symbolic gesture on your spouse with zero real world impact.

So what if an index underperforms a dartboard? The objective is for the spouse to live comfortably for the rest of their lives. Everyone one this board is wealthy enough to achieve this for their spouse using index based investing. This is not a game that the spouse needs to win.

Last but not least, any non-index based plan is destined to fail anyway, because sooner or later someone will come along and convince your spouse to tinker with the portfolio. Unless it's based on personal knowledge and long experience, it's easy to get shaken out of individual equities when prices fall. This will eventually happen and your spouse will end up underperforming the index.