It may be worth reiterating something here about positionality to a source? That strikes me as one of the aspects that beginning students are often confused about--that something could be considered either a primary or a secondary source, depending on your research question.

process?

Is there any need for training in tools on sharing that material back out (for example, their research product)?

add "that" after "decisions"?

"structures"? "hierarchies"? "inequities"?

"engage with"? or "actively engage with"?

"influence" maybe? And I'm not really clear on who is doing the skill-building in this sentence, instructors or students (or both?)

I think this language could even be strengthened, as you know that it will be applied differently in different contexts, because individual context will always influence how people interpret these kinds of documents.

I would suggest some wording here like, "we acknowledge that teaching with primary sources also often includes affective outcomes, such as conveying excitement..." I also could imagine that you might get push back on the phrasing about these qualities resisting assessment--there is literature on assessing engagement or interest, so that phrasing is not precisely true. I'm not sure what to suggest as an alternative, though I think you could say something about it being challenging to assess especially in a limited time frame. Or perhaps just own that those outcomes aren't what you are dealing with here, because those issues aren't unique to primary source literacy...

Recommend adding "and codify best practices..." after this and deleted the final sentence in this paragraph.

Recommend adding "critical" before "knowledge."