It's not a 'Goldilocks thing'. It's very easy to measure the degree to which a large company's hires is loosely reflective of demographics in the general population. The reason to that is that many companies want to get big orders from federal and state government, which organizations have imposed such requirements upon their suppliers as a systematic solution to rectifying the discriminatory policies of the past.

I can see you're an intelligent person and have some knowledge of this issue, which leads me to think you already understand the basis of diversity policies very well and are simply choosing to mischaracterize it.

The problem is that individual companies are held responsible for the general population instead of the qualified population. It isn't the company's job to make sure that the general population is educated.

It is enough that well known/top companies have demographics that are similar to the undergrad CS demographics of Berkeley/Stanford/MIT/etc., whether or not those demographics are reflective of the general population

In the public eye, your statement is correct. In terms of EEOC investigation and litigation, on the other hand, the qualified applicant pool is the criteria.