I agree with the 2nd point (I also think Procession didn't need the "no longer works on Durations" errata), but I think it's problematic to have an option lack accountability, even if you could always just choose one of the other options. I have the same gripe with Treasurer and Graverobber.
I think there is a distinction between "you can always choose one of the other options" and "you can always choose one of the other options, and that other option would never have a negative impact." With Treasurer, you could always choose "take the Key," and either take it or, if you already have it, choose that and have it fail. One really has to stretch to imagine when you would not want to take the Key (the only scenario I can come up with is in a 3+ player game where you and another player are competing for first, while the player with the Key is far behind, and you want them to still have the Key to increase the chance of them buying the game-ending Province/Colony before your meaningful opponent has the chance).
Graverobber is more problematic, as it is easier to imagine a scenario where you wouldn't want to do either. For example, if you played GR with Golem, don't want to trash any of the Action cards in your hand, but also don't want to gain the only qualifying card(s) in the trash, either because they will ding you through some Landscape (e.g. Bandit Fort) or get in the way when put onto your deck.
Consider a Treasure card with the following text:
$2
Choose one: put your hand onto your deck; or trash an Action card from your hand to gain a Victory card costing up to $2 than it.
This card obviously has some serious accountability issues. A player will almost always want to play it, but may very well not want to do either of the choices. That player could choose the first option, say they have no Action cards to trash, then discard an Action card below another card an get away with it. However, while it needs to change, I don't think this would be the way to go about it:
$2
Choose one: you may put your hand onto your deck; or you may trash an Action card from your hand to gain a Victory card costing up to $2 than it.
I would say this is pretty obviously overcorrecting. There's no need for "you may" to be on both of them, since if (a) one option has "you may" and (b) you can choose that option, then choose not to do it, then the lack of accountability on the other option doesn't functionally matter in the game. To me, "+$1" is also functionally the same as "you may get +$1" because, in the universe of official cards, there is effectively no circumstance in which you would choose not to get an extra coin if it was offered at absolutely no cost. Thus, whenever there is a set of "choose one:" options, at least one of which is a no-downside choice, there is not a need for accountability where players might choose something and then lie to say it failed.
I mean, yeah, but neither assertion is really hurting the card.
For me (and this is a matter of preference), any card that is longer than 4 lines I will try to shorten the text if I can do so without making the card worse/harder to understand.