My impression is that the biggest risk for someone with your profile is that you are not conscious of the pool you are playing in, and that can give you false confidence about where your opportunities lie. I'll call it the Goldilocks problem.
You know that you belong in a different stratum of applicants based on what you see online or in college. You know that you are not like the clueless pre-meds that meander around requirements and waste years trying to figure out how to shadow or enter a research lab. You knew what you were doing from day 1 and were on an accelerated track. You graduated early, and you still did "all the things." That's actually really impressive, kudos to you for putting in some work.
At the same time, you may not necessarily feel your profile is comparable to the very top stratum; the people with entire careers before applying, the Rhodes scholars with PhDs in cancer biology moving on to the next "smart person" thing. You were not trying to reinvent the wheel and collect X-factors, and it is likely that you might scoff at the idea that you could have done any more than you already did with the time you had. Fair enough.
So, you might compare yourself favorably to the mid-range applicant, the theoretical pool of average matriculants, the Goldilocks applicants who did not make a ton of mistakes, but aren't deluding themselves by applying to Harvard: the totally "average" ~3.7/512 applicants who safely apply to the lion's share of medical schools below the T20 and collect mid and low-tier acceptances like nobody's business. You may look at these profiles and think, "I'm a shoo-in for a Drexel, or a Creighton, or a Temple, or an NYMC, because those students get into those places, and I did better than they did."
The problem is that you will not be compared to the Goldilocks applicants. You will be compared to the very top, because that is where folks with your demographics, your privileges, and your life opportunities converge. The more opportunities at your disposal, the more is expected of you. This knife cuts both ways, and in this particular case, I think you are at risk of being burned by trends in admissions that have pushed the "privileged, adequate but uninspired" applicant out of favor. Some mid/low tier schools will plainly yield protect you (as in, they're not even fully reading those applications because they blow the school out of the water), others will consider you but pass because if they are admitting superstars from the top tier, they can only afford to give up so many interview seats to that type of student before it becomes self-punishing across the entire admissions function.
I think, given that you are already at the point of applying, all you can really do is temper your expectations. You will probably get in somewhere, but it is likely you will have reduced chances at the top tier, but be viewed more skeptically at the mid and low tier. Your metrics put you at the zenith of applicants, the problem is that everyone in that pool, by definition, is going to have roughly the same numbers (to the point where numbers are no longer materially distinguishing). What is left, the EC profile, is going to be standardized into a number via rubric and ranked. You may get some contextual understanding from the adcom given you graduated early (and remember your HS hours don't count), but the reality is there are so many applicants, banking on wishful thinking is not a wise strategy in my opinion.
We don't have details about your application, so I think a granular analysis of your fit at particular schools would be difficult. You did some nonclinical volunteering and have some service orientation, but you do not come across as a mission-fit type of applicant. At the same time, the T20 research powerhouses are looking for future academicians (or at least scientifically fluent applicants), but it doesn't seem like you enjoyed research very much, either. You, understandably, leaned on clinical experience, which is yet another safe, technically correct move. What is still yet to be seen is whether some facet of that experience resonates with a specific patient population, and even more importantly, with other aspects of your activities.
This part is just my opinion, but yes, I think a deep narrative is the application. After all the hours, the grades, the scores, the SJTs, there has to be an essence. You don't want to be "the person who checked all the boxes adequately." You want to be a person in 4D: someone who has passions and interests in medicine, someone who had a vision, someone who makes a mark on the world, someone who is not waiting around for schools to accept them. You want to come across undeniable, unassailable—and I am the first to say I acknowledge how unfair and unrealistic that seems for all applicants. (I don't make the rules, but it has been my observation going through T20 medical school admissions.)
It is probable you will read this and think "you didn't really say anything, you pretty much said it's a toss up and you may or may not have a chance at any medical school," and... fair... I always say that if you ever feel confident throughout this process, you're a little delusional.
All of admissions is risk stratification. Nobody has an A+++, 100% chance of matriculation application. Every application cycle brings its own fresh applicants and reviewers, creates its own rough pools, and selects on always-shifting, institutionally specific factors. You are going to want to compose your list based on your state schools + some low/mid-tier privates + T20s that highly value metrics like WashU and Vanderbilt. Maybe USF because they have abandoned any semblance of holistic review.
What will be most important for you will be trying quite hard to convince someone through your writing that you are actually a thoughtful, mature applicant. You can be wildly successful or fall flat on your face with this profile depending on how you handle the writing process (have you prewritten secondaries? If not, you're already late) and the administrative aspect (submitting early/becoming complete in your portal/participating in Q&As and other events at schools). All of that says a lot about you as an applicant as well.
Honestly, godspeed, and good luck. The admissions process is really brutal, and I prepared for it for years and was still clutching my pearls pretty much the entire time. You've given up a lot to be a successful applicant, and I want to honor that while still reminding you that the effort may not be commensurate with outcome. That's not inherently fair, but that's the game.
