Be very, very clear about what you did, versus what your team or the organization around you did. What does it mean that you "scaled engineering processes while organization grew from 400 people to 1200", for instance? Most of that sentence talks about what the organization did; what people reading it want to know is what you did, and at what scope. For instance, does that mean that you helped the organization's engineering processes scale up, or does that mean you helped your own team cope with the organization scaling up?

Likewise, "developed a roadmap to achieve goals" sounds so empty as a statement. What kinds of goals, were they actually achieved, what effect did the roadmap have, what was the follow-through? (Perhaps this is just an issue with anonymization. It's not that you need the minute details, but do provide enough information that your resume sounds different from a thousand other resumes in ways other than just changing the proper nouns.)

By contrast, something like "Developed engineering evaluation guidelines and career paths within the org" sounds much better; it's clear what scope you had, and it's a substantial scope. You helped fill a void within the broader organization, likely to the benefit of both your team and the organization. Put that together with your mentions of leveling up engineers at various levels, and you're telling a consistent story that shows you raising your team up and raising the tide for everyone in the process.

The bullet points on your first role sound much clearer as well.

In general, when reading any given item, I'd like to know how you saw a problem, figured out the right solution, worked to get that solution implemented, and followed through to make sure it solved the problem. Not all of those things need to be explicitly stated (and for the most part they won't all need to be), but I think all of them need to be evident in some way. If you also tell a consistent story in the process, people start to get a picture of who you are and what you can do for them.