Any place that could be deemed a "brotopia" is likely bad at building positive culture--I know I wouldn't want to work there. But still, different people will have different effects, some of them being net positive and others net negative. And what counts as positive or negative will vary a bit from org to org. If you can call culture fit a "culture addition", a lack of culture fit may be a case of "culture subtraction".
I kind of think of this in the context of material properties and teams having their own stiffness and strength. The higher the strength, the harder it is for imposed forces (i.e. challenging new perspectives and personalities) to cause team failure. The higher the stiffness, the more resistant to changing form under imposed forces. I assume high strength is universally preferred, but stiffness is a little more complicated; a high stiffness team ensures consistency but is difficult to alter and improve upon, whereas low stiffness enhances your ability to reshape and broaden team culture but also leaves it more sensitive to changes.
Obviously all of these are just mental abstractions, but I contend that one is easier to think about as someone who cares about diversity.
That said, there is some value in sharing some important core principles.
However, to me either someone can execute their responsibilities, or they can’t—but it’s dufficult to infer that from a pre-work interview.
As it is non conforming cultural fit might be someone who doesn’t drink like a fish, or someone who needs to take care of family obligations after working hours, for example.
(Then, I suppose, there's the further question of whether it's even possible to add to a culture that doesn't want to be added to.)
You do add to a team of programmers by adding a marketing person, salesperson, technical support or test person.