Analogies can be strong or weak. Comparing a person’s relation to nature, to two people’s relation to each other in marriage is weak because nature isn’t a person. The talk of objective harmony would be an equivocation because you’d be holding out the objective aspect of compatibility, while presupposing the more dubious subjective one. Your analogy assumes the relation is between two subjects, whereas that’s not so in the case of nature—unless you bring in all sorts of dubious Neoplatonic metaphysics, which Vervaeke is likely to do.

It's the same with your other analogies of fitness and utility. Both assume a subjective element that’s absent from the relation between nature and people. Those analogies are therefore weak.

Although an idealist case could be made here too, height is likely a different matter since physical differences in size would indeed exist even if no one were around to measure them. Yet the notions of fitness, as in a peg through a hole, and of utility assume not just physical properties but a goal to be achieved. These concepts are teleological and thus not purely objective.

Once you admit that cosmic harmony is at least partly subjective, you admit also that that metaphor depends on some dubious metaphysics. That was my point about Vervaeke’s implicit Neoplatonism.