Example (1): I object that the evidence is inadmissible under Rule 407 as a subsequent remedial measure.

The objection is the "correct" answer, but could be better. It does not specifically identify the evidence you object to. Example (2) is an improvement

Example (2): I object that the evidence of Applebaum installing non-slip stickpads on the shower floor is inadmissible under Rule 407 as a subsequent remedial measure.

The objection now satisfies the first part of the specificity rule by making it clear what evidence you object to. But it merely directs the judge to the rule in general, and does not quote the specific text that applies. Simply adding the complete text of the rule, as in examples (3) and (4), is not much of an improvement.

Example (3): I object that the evidence of Applebaum installing non-slip stickpads on the shower floor is inadmissible under Rule 407 as a subsequent remedial measure. Rule 407 says "When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction."

Example (4): I object that the evidence of Applebaum installing non-slip stickpads on the shower floor is inadmissible under Rule 407 as a subsequent remedial measure. Rule 407 says "When, after an injury • • • caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury • • • less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible • • • "

Example (4) is better than (3) because it includes only the important text of the rule, but these objections still just direct the judge to the right rule, but do not explain how the text applies to this situation. Example (5) is much better:

Example (5): I object that the evidence of Applebaum installing non-slip stickpads on the shower floor is inadmissible under Rule 407 as a subsequent remedial measure. The change was made after plaintiff's injury and if it had been done previously, would have made plaintiff's slipping in the shower less likely to occur.

Note that it uses the key words from Rule 407 "after an injury," "if taken previously," and "would have made [it] less likely to occur."