Consider the question: "why this problem and not a different problem?", we should encourage people to optimize their problem selection more.
Enforcing the asking of 1, 2, and 5 (in the first list) seems like it would eliminate 90% of what people are doing in academia.
"If you invest N years of your life in this project and totally fail, will you be happy that you tried anyway?"
It's part of an expected utility calculation. The other questions are relevant to the estimation of the probability of success (P) and the utility of success (A). That suggests the expected utility is PA. But actually the expected utility is PA + (1-P)B, where B is the utility of failure. The second term is probably non-trivial, and might even dominate. For further analysis of this issue, see here.
Your project should be funded on spec by investors/donors and essentially be part of a diversified portfolio held by a larger entitity than yourself as an individual. Your individual risk is far less because you are paid either way.
If investors are not convinced (and you are not independently wealthy, in which case you should be less risk adverse), you will not be able to devote your full time efforts to a long term project, no matter how worthwhile you think it is.
True, but there are gray areas in the middle ground: spend evenings and weekends on your research project, find part time employment that gives you a bit more spare time, do the research as a graduate student, live on the dole and eat noodles, ask family for support, take out a second mortgage on your house to pay the bills in the meantime, spend a year in Australia working as a bartender to save up enough money to cover a year of research, etc.
Of course none of these is ideal, and none is a permanent solution, but then, venture capitalists (let alone banks) usually won't finance research - they're looking for faster and surer payback, and even trying to do development as a startup is hard enough - so as a practical matter, most people with a research project they want to pursue end up having to try one or more of the gray area solutions at least for a while (unless you already have an established position in academia or a corporate think tank, and obtaining such a position is a hard and uncertain task with costs of its own).
So the truth is, unless you are particularly lucky, you're going to be paying a substantial personal cost one way or another, which doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, but it does mean is this worth the cost even considering that I might fail? is a highly relevant question.
I think something like question 9 is very helpful. Even more important than having an a priori success criterion, instead of defining it a posteriori to fit whatever one has accomplished (though in science sometimes redefining success criteria does make sense, because one does never know exactly in advance what can be accomplished), is the mental exercise of coming up with such a criterion. If one isn't even able to do this, that's a very bad sign for the project.