It's known as
Practical Drift - when a procedure is particularly onerous, crews at the local level develop "workarounds" which differ from the laid down procedure.
The minor problem is that the safety goal of the written procedure may not be met by the workaround (sometimes it may be met - sometimes local workarounds are actually more logical). The major problem is that, when working closely with others (i.e. as a pilot in a multi-crew flightdeck), confusion results when some of the crew are no longer following the procedures designed to standardise responses and actions.
Given the very few go arounds which get flown, yes - I would follow the published SOP and go around, if only to reinforce the procedure and practice the manoeuvre. As a mitigating factor, I would balance that against the other risks inherent in the operation. (i.e. I wouldn't go around if low on fuel, if in weather causing queues for the approach etc etc). Yes I would dash off a quick ASR in either case - as that is the only way to gather data to change poorly written procedures. 10 go arounds at 900 feet, with ASRs (due the checklist being the only item not complete), and guess which procedure will be modified in the next amendment cycle?
As to being given a mandatory speed to 4nm (and a company manual which recommends slowing at 5nm) - you have to either comply with ATC's instructions or
tell them you are unable to comply. Personally I hold the 160knots to 4nm every time, and generally prevent FOs from slowing early.