"Legibility" must be the wrong word because I can't understand what the author is talking about. Is he saying that the overuse of abstractions is ruining corporate culture? Or is he saying that the uniformity of corporate processes is becoming overbearing?

I think this needs to be re-written with different terminology.

"...you don't care about code review"

Code review is one of the things I care about most! In fact, now what we're in an age where many code changes are generated by LLMs, I think that code reviews are far more important than they used to be.

"Processes adopted by a company aren't about the end result of the work. Their stated goals and their actual goals are always distinct."

Wrong again. Often the goal is exactly as stated, for better or for worse. Let's take incident reviews as an example: their goal is to reduce the occurrence of emergency incidents in the future by learning from the mistakes that led to incidents in the past. There's no doublethink involved.

"Legibility" here just means something that is visibly important/useful/scrutable/not a waste of time to (i.e. "is legible to") a manager.