Stephen, thank you for the article.

There are a number of problems with the existing solutions to longevity and the regulations,
There is the investment problem that you allude to in reference to the 'bucket' solution - existing longevity solutions entail conservative investment, giving lower returns over what is still a long term, rather than the more aggressive investment allowed by account-based pensions.
And there is the 'forfeiture' problem - to keep the cost of meeting longevity down a sizeable amount of the remaining investment must be forfeited on death - if this is not done then, either, there won't be enough if the retiree doesn't die, or the cost of meeting longevity will be exorbitant. Unfortunately, retirees have been told it is 'their money', and if they die it must be available to be passed on as an inheritance. I think this is contrary to the purpose of superannuation (to provide in retirement) but others obviously think differently.
The new regulations introduced in July 2017 are NOT innovative. They simply encourage the sale of products with particular features (admittedly now a broader range) - they do not encourage innovation but merely accommodate innovation that has already taken place (like now allowing deferred annuities). New products will be constrained to meet the new regulations (which, unless the products clearly meet the requirements, will serve to increase complexity and arbitrariness).
CIPRs similarly won't facilitate innovation - each product making up the CIPR must comply with the regulations.
What is really needed for innovation are principles (for the whole retirement package), within which innovation can take place, not rules (for each product).

Accordingly, it would be interesting to know more about the Optimum Real Lifetime Pension - is it essentially a unitised annuity? If so, it may solve the investment problem, allowing typical unit-linked investments, but not the forfeiture problem, as units would be presumably forfeited on death.

My own solution is a Pure Endowment, paying a lump sum on survival (a bit like a deferred annuity, but paying a lump sum, rather than an income stream), which might then be used to purchase an annuity at then current rates. In addition, it would be:
* with-profits, to allow more aggressive investment; and
* regular premium, so that only premiums paid to date are forfeited on death, not the whole single premium.