I think people find themselves a bit intimidated by surveyors and insurers sometimes. Now, the surveyor should note every deficiency they observe. There may be several ways to remedy those deficiencies as shown in this thread. As to the insurer, initial requirements may be one person, perhaps well informed and perhaps not, making a statement. However, every item is subject to further conversation and negotiation. Often it's helpful to have a good broker assisting in communications with the underwriters. There are items on which there is no compromise. Other times there may be an item that the ideal solution is $10,000 but there's a reasonable remedy that addresses the real issue for $400.
I don't believe the fact the insurer may compromise should change anything about the survey though. I do understand the argument "This is not how things were done when the boat was built". The opposite argument to that though is "That's why many won't insure boats build then." A far better discussion is "These requirements are recent and to fully comply with them would be cost prohibitive. However, I can accomplish the goal of safety by doing this. I would hope that would be satisfactory."
I would prefer surveyors noting those items they consider critical safety issues and those that are recommendations, perhaps even ideal solutions and alternatives.
It's common for negotiations to take place with insurers after surveys.
