Hmm...
Basically, "that's just a netlist, with extra steps" (to paraphrase..)?
Let me explain: I don't see the harnesses being much advantage over just slapping net labels on every pin. They provide a little more graphical sugar*, busing connections and showing where they go -- but it's still another mechanism of indirection, of not actually showing what components connect (touch) which other components.
*"Syntactical sugar", but in schematic form I guess?
Consider this -- I'm going to suppose that, given how many harnesses go between Inputs and Connectors, most of those connectors
are actually inputs, as such? Would it not be simpler, then, to place them there? Or, as a sub-sub-sheet there? Or to split the subsheet between an "inputs" piece, and an "everything else" piece -- or just putting the bits and pieces where they go? What do you really gain by showing
just connectors in one place?
Ultimately, as long as the connectivity is right, it doesn't matter, of course, but style matters for readability, and readability is the one-sided conversation from author to audience. You are writing a document here, as much as in any other place, and communicating clearly should be the ultimate goal. If your audience is yourself -- well, who cares, of course; but if a thousand technicians are going to be looking at it at some point or another, please take pity on them, they will appreciate it!
Tim