Point number 1 appears self-evident. Six walking legs are objectively different from eight walking legs.
Point number 2, I’m less sure. @epiphyte78 's question about beak length can be looked at another way: how important is beak length to the bird? and how important is beak length to the flower? The bird either objectively obtains nectar, or objectively does not. The flower either objectively gets pollinated, or objectively does not. These survival outcomes are not open to the organism’s interpretation.
If the bird or the flower had the capacity to think in terms of “should,” the bird could think, “this flower should have a shorter corolla” and the flower could think “that bird should have a longer beak.” Less likely perhaps, the bird could think “I should have a longer beak” and the flower could think “I should have a shorter corolla.” That’s where the subjectivity comes in: who “should” change for whom.