Of course saying that a cube fits into a round hole misuses the word "fits." That's because that word's standard use presupposes the subjective preference for certain effects. You're the one who's positing an objective kind of fitness. I was saying only that if we assume that objective meaning, we'd be talking only about causes and effects, which would trivialize the conventional notion of fitness.

The cube's corner would fit through the hole, and the rest of the cube would clang off the rim. That would be fitness for those two objects. It wouldn't be the expected, most pleasing kind of fitness (according to which the whole object has to pass smoothly through the hole, without damaging the edges), but that would be irrelevant, by your dubious hypothesis about the objectivity of natural harmonies.

It's the same with the asteroid hitting the planet. There's objective causality which doesn't necessarily match up with our preferences, and then there's subjective fitness, the kind of process that has a "pleasing" effect. Vervaeke's presupposing the latter, not the former when he talks about cosmic or metaphysical "harmonies."