Gooseneck design question

[memelet]

As part of my rig rebuild, I had my gooseneck bracket (which was originally welded on the mast) removed and a bracket built. While I did not exactly specify the bracket (my bad) I was expecting something like:

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink

What I got was:

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink

Here's how it was attached originally:

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink

The two main differences I'm concerned about are: 1) That the mounting plate does not fully wrap around to the sides of the mast, allowing the plate take the side loads instead of the bolts, and 2) That the mounting plate is so small that only three bolts can be used on each side.

The yard that did the work insists that:
- their design "was built to never fail"
- that "its strong enough"
- that there "is a negative to making the fitting bigger and adding holes"

At my request they have agreed to rebuild the bracket and split the cost, but also stipulated that they would not be "responsible for cracks that could develop in the mast by drilling more holes"

So my question here is two fold:
1) Is the bracket as currently built adequate?
2) Could adding more holes -- similar to the first picture but maybe not as many -- cause the mast to develop cracks. (That picture comes from a Dashew Sundeer)?
*) ... add the questions I should be asking here ...

The boat is a 1985 Passport 42 cutter. The spar was made by Hall, is keel stepped, and very very strong. The boom is only 12 feet.

thanks!!
-barry