By that logic, everyone’s a good match since everyone’s parents were successful in procreating.
Think of two genetically distant subspecies sharing the same environment. They both exist and so they must both be successful, right? But they're only successful because they're each specializing in their own niche in the environment and have a body plan built to exploit that niche. The study was saying that DNA hardwires us to understand that even though a genetically distant partner is available and successful in their own way, mating with them is a gamble that could produce unfit offspring.
The example the study used was the famous Galapagos Finches that Charles Darwin documented. They were all the same species of finch, but each subspecies had a dramatically different beak meant to harvest a different type of food. Some had short and hardy beaks meant to break open seeds, others had long and pointed beaks meant to extract insects from trees. They could all interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but they avoided each other because a hybrid offspring could have an in-between beak that couldn't crush seeds or reach insects. Their DNA hardwired these finches somehow to seek mates with as similar a beak as possible.
Another good example would be two species of big cats occupying the same area. Imagine one hunts by the river and is built for swimming like a Jaguar, and the other hunts on open land and is built for chasing down prey like a Lion. Even though they could technically interbreed, their DNA would hardwire them to stay away from each other because a hybrid offspring could have a hybrid body plan that's no longer good for swimming or running. It would starve.
The study conjectured that humans had sound reasons to want to be with people who look as similar to themselves as possible. Imagine it's the distant past and you live in the far north, then survival means your skin color being very pale to get the right amount of Vitamin D, and your body being short and barrel-chested to preserve as much heat as possible. You therefore have a very specific body plan to survive in your environment. Now imagine some explorers arrive who originate from a scorching equatorial region. Their body plan for their environment means they have a dark complexion and are very tall and skinny (for optimum heat dissipation). So, having children with these explorers would be a bad idea and result in children not adapted to their environment. In this scenario both populations were successful in their own way in their own environment, but their hybrid offspring wouldn't be.
Or go even further in the past, when there were many different species of hominin such as Neanderthals or Homo Floresiensis (those very small hominins from Indonesia). It's been shown today that humans suffer genetic disease from ancient humans interbreeding with Neanderthals, and we only have 2% of our DNA from Neanderthals. Interbreeding between those majorly distinct groups of ancient hominins could have produced very sick, if marginally fertile offspring.
Well, hopefully you get my point. The study was saying that DNA seems to instruct us to know that while a genetically distant potential partner could be available and is successful, it's often a gamble with poor odds of success. It's best to stick with what's working, and that means finding someone similar to who we are.