No, no. this should be 1-of-2. the 2-of-2 doesn't work here. we exactly need either of the keys unlock the funds. therefore we could track abuses.
When Alice is alive uses her primary account for transactions normally. but she also creates a secondary account linked (with OR logic gate) to her primary account, and gives its security values to her attorney/trusted_person with permission to use the keys of the secondary account when she is dead. if she share her primary account with others, she can't track any abuse of her account, but with 1-of-2, you could simply track the sign of your funds to see which sign get used for a particular transaction.
But again.. this approach requires trust.
Yes, you could track the 'abuse' in terms of you'd know who spend these coins.
But you wouldn't be able to 'revert' it or anything else.
The coins would be gone in this scenario. The best approach is a trustless approach. And this does exclude the option of a 1of2 multisig with giving 1 key away.
so, we have HASHED TIME LOCKED CONTRACTS (HTLC) in bitcoin that works with the concept of PROOF-of-Payment and even could provide *reversible* transactions to the payer or re-route it to 3rd address. this only needs to open payment channels.
more info:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hashed_Timelock_Contracts** if there are no other technical considerations, now we have an ALICE1-ALICE2-CHARLIE relationship in a dead scenario. Alice owns two accounts, Alice1 and Alice 2. Alice will have her bitcoins accessible by submitting a random digital content with Alice1 which triggers a transaction to Alice2. if this digital content does not submit before a specified future time, then could automatically re-route to CHARLIE.