You’re talking about putting $7,500 of hard-earned cash into this. That’s not just a purchase, that’s a commitment. But when your "85% performer" gives you nearly the same sonic enjoyment and lets you save $5,000, that’s compelling. Especially if the sonic compromise is more in nuances, maybe slightly less "air," a bit narrower soundstage, or a touch less resolution than in core musicality, like tonality, imaging, and balance.
Given that the rest of your setup is mid-level, it might be worth asking "Would your system even let you hear the full difference between Option 3 and the top-tier contenders?" If your existing chain (room, power, source, speakers) doesn’t extract that last 15%, you’re paying a premium for a theoretical gain. Saving $5,000 could fund another significant upgrade, perhaps a killer DAC, room treatment etc.
If Option 3’s sonic character sings to you, and you’re not just hypnotised by spec sheets or brand sparkle, I’d go for it. Use the leftover budget to upgrade weak links, or save it for when something truly transformational comes along. But if you’re the person who will always wonder “what if,” then you might need to go for the full-fat option just to sleep better.