Some good ideas here but it also seems too polarized. It touches on how important the culture is but it also fails to address the nuances with talent. Often very talented people can seem to not fit the company culture because the culture needs modifying. You touch on the “10x engineer” but that is an extreme. Many talented people might be extremely capable but fighting against the culture which leads to either a need to change the culture or that person becoming dissatisfied and leaving.
It is also unclear if you really are talking established culture companies or startups, as the skill set between these greatly differs. Established companies need more average employees willing to submit to the company culture where startups need innovation that defines the culture more. I guess the best term is creativity. A matrix doesn’t fit creative thinking because that is “outside the box”. So this matrix could be a good thing for management to judge average employees but if they only consider those that fit the existing culture “mold” they will be losing those creative innovators that won’t fit into the matrix. Those types are often very complicated to handle and will generally not fit the established environment because they need more “air to breathe”.