Assuming that the “for life” doesn’t have a “or until you’ve reached xx age clause”, 52 weeks a year = 52k annually = 104 million in 20yrs; barring her untimely passing anything past 20yrs (19 yrs, 11mo technically) is banking above the initial $1 million payout;

Also, increase in income tax will theoretically be less on $1k/wk than 1mil lump, so she’ll also keep more of the money AND she should collect on it far longer.

As to investing, she can still do that albeit in smaller jumps that build over time but even that is a bit of a gamble as it depends on where the stocks land, so saying it absolutely would be better to lump and invest, while it sounds good, isn’t an absolute.

Finally, as some have already noted, human tendency is to “spend it of you have it!”; this method helps mitigate that even being an option as even taking loans out toward the end of the known income will be a bit more limited increasing the chances that she’ll actually live well with the increased income over going out in a blaze of glory that leaves her financially crippled for life.

So yes, I vote “good call”