I agree with your points. It's just wording like

a human review will never be perfect

That is either redundant or implying a non-human review can be perfect. Because neither human, AI, automated or whatever future form of reviews will be perfect. So again, either redundant or implying what I mentioned.

I will say that in theory human reviews are the closest to perfect. If a team of highly skilled professionals reviewed every app, tested it thoroughly, used automated tools and even reviewed source code then it would probably the closest to perfect we'd get. But that's not scalable in so many ways, so you add some automation for the simple things. And then you go from several reviewers to a single reviewer. And then you go from a highly skilled professional to someone in more like a call center.

And then you're at where we are now, with it being flawed but okay. Better than Google in some ways, probably worse in other ways.

But it's not because it is human.