Ah, that's interesting, and I think that tracks with my impression.

The author definitely seems to be downplaying her complicity moment-to-moment, particularly in scenes where she says what needs to be said but then fails to relay what happens next—where she presumably continues to comply and use her skills and knowledge of the system to deliver on what her bosses and colleagues want. But as a whole her complicity feels out in the open because it's the story of someone who has all the "right" convictions and yet whose breaking point with the company had nothing to do with any of their global actions but just where it was personally uncomfortable to her as an individual (harassment and lack of support for her health and family life).

The fact that she seems to have zero self-awareness of how this makes her look is what makes her general story seem believable to me, because I feel like someone who was doing more large-scale editing of the truth would have tried to adjust that aspect.