My advice to you is to avoid bureaucratic/academic language that is nearly devoid of meaning. For example, "there [are] often aspects of human capital that can only be seen on the level of organization and not the individual" and "it has the potential to reduce oversight by leveraging a variety of perspectives."
For examples to illustrate: a group of QA testers that consists entirely of pale-skinned people is going to be collectively less qualified at testing a face recognition tool than a group with a range of skin tones. A school board consisting entirely of people from a particular geographic area is less able to fully account for local concerns and logistics than one with members from a broad area. Diversity for diversity's sake can be a real advantage when you think carefully about what diversity looks like for your project. If you don't see the potential, that's fine, I have no interest in persuading you. My advice to you is that sometimes when you don't understand something, it's not because it was poorly written. But sorry for the typo ;)
My advice to you is to avoid bureaucratic/academic language that is nearly devoid of meaning. For example, "there [are] often aspects of human capital that can only be seen on the level of organization and not the individual" and "it has the potential to reduce oversight by leveraging a variety of perspectives."