When I look at the video, I feel that P could have acted to avoid S at times 0:32-0:34 but did not. Therefore, I conclude that S broke no rules, and P broke rules 10 and 14.

Although you may look at ISAF Cases 60 ("when a right-of-way boat changes course in such a way that a keep-clear boat, despite having taken avoiding action promptly, cannot keep clear in a seamanlike way, the right-of-way boat breaks rule 16.1") and 92 ("when a right-of-way boat changes course, the keep-clear boat is required to act only in response to what the right-of-way boat is doing at the time, not what the right-of-way boat might do subsequently") and place the burden of keeping clear on boat S, you should also look at Case 75, which states "a starboard-tack boat that changes course does not break rule 16.1 if she gives a port-tack boat adequate space to keep clear and the port-tack boat fails to take advantage of it promptly". I believe that M87(P) failed to take advantage of the space that H7(S) gave her. Therefore, H7(S) did not break rule 16.1.