Kind of a personal question. I like to plan for the worst and hope for the best.
This is a twin vs single discussion. And it is indeed a personal decision for two reasons: risk assessment vs ability to mitigate will vary widely for each operator.
For most people, risk assessment consists of developing a laundry list of what-ifs and try to tick as many of the boxes as they can (or can afford). Much of my career was in IT consulting. Data Center disaster planning was a common topic and had a very structured approach to risk assessment. 99% uptime sounds pretty good until you do the math: 3-1/2 days of annual outage meets the uptime objective but is unacceptable service delivery.
The problem with the laundry list approach is it doesn't really prioritize fault scenarios. So you do an Impact vs Probability assessment to prioritize risk and focus remediation resources. The core "disaster" of the single vs twin debate is that a well-maintained engine having no other symptoms suddenly stops operating in a manner that doesn't affect a standby engine a few feet away from it. That's an extremely rare occurrence. Failure of a damper plate or high pressure injector line comes to mind (both fairly easily repaired, BTW).
For the most part, total failures exhibit markers long before shut down. For example, theres a very active thread about a 58-foot Hatteras that totally trashed one of the engines - several pistons, rings, camshaft, and related pieces all in bits. Oil in the coolant and coolant in the oil. But you know what? The engine still ran and he limped into the next harbor!!! Even with a second engine running as expected, the cruise was terminated for repairs. BTW - an oil analysis would have indicated a major problem long before the engine blew.
One TF member -
@Hippocampus - was very active until he recently sold his trawler for a 25-foot fishing boat. A retired surgeon, he was extremely risk averse and endlessly identified risks and mitigated them. He'd have a heart attack if he were in my boat as I'm much more sanguine about risk. My thinking is risk is part of the equation - either accept it or don't go.
As far as spare generator, sounds odd but quite a few boats cannot be reasonably or comfortably operated without AC power. Failure of a generator means no battery charger which means the electronically controlled engines shut down - my hunch is this is much more common than ECU failure. Those boats should consider a spare generator.
So yea, indeed personal. Both in how you approach risk and your stomach/wallet for mitigation.
Peter