Technically, anything (and everything) that makes one person “different” from another is a form of diversity. Could be landed status (e.g., white male, but first-generation immigrant); language (national language not being the person's first / primary / native language); etc. Therefore, could the definition simply state, “lived experiences of stakeholders taking into account as much intersectionality that is determined to be relevant for the valuation." This entails a question of who is determining the relevance, which again speaks to my earlier comments about subjectivity, pluralism, context, relativism. 

Essentially, my point here is that to specify a list will mean that diversification issues important to a party will very likely be missing from the list, and thus the definition incomplete. If some aspect of a person or community is important to the valuation, then it matters. If it is irrelevant, then it can feasibly be ignored or discounted, notwithstanding that such a conclusion would probably be best footnoted and clarified as having been made and why. Best to pre-empt backlash, improve transparency over judgements, and in the event that such a criterion is subsequently identified to be material to the decisionmaking, the conclusion now revisited. Etc.