OK, Here goes, tell me what you think

Don't have a full answer to SoR risk (if it means running out of retirement money before running out of life), but a couple of observations:
If you have enough at the start to sustain a certain % withdrawal each year, then keeping to that % in down times eliminates SoR risk, but it might mean eating cat food in bad years. It's withdrawing the same amount of money in bad years that does the damage.
The Bogleheads have a variable percentage withdrawal spreadsheet that asks you each year or so in retirement to re-assess your life expectancy, assess your assets and make the necessary withdrawal adjustments. It has the advantages of working towards running out of money as closely as possible just as you die, as well as giving you the assurance that your financial future is accurately mapped out so that you can avoid being spooked into doing something silly during bad downturns (because you know it's all going to work out).
Lastly, markets do tend to recover, but not always within a year. I think the French stock (accumulation!) market took 100 years to recover in real (not nominal) terms after WW1. An argument in favour of diversification.

Triumph13 wrote: »

If your husband predeceases you, then you can inherit any remaining funds in his SIPP so don't worry too much about whose name things are in. Yes there will always be a possibility that one of you will use up all the care budget leaving nothing left over for the second one, but would that be different if you put the money in separate pots?

As my OH has a 4x larger SIPP pot, our intention is to use that initially for drawdown, until both pots are approximately equal, then drawdown equally from each, so that any residue can be inherited either way, and if one is emptied due to care needs, the other remains for use of the survivor. Not a perfect solution, if one requires care early on, but the best we can think of now.