This is all a degree of selection. The game is "mute" about narrative in all editions. It has always been up to the DM and the players to make the "narrative" their own, if they so choose.
I think there are two narratives going on here. There is the immediate and specific one in regards to rolling a result and describing it, but there is also the overall narrative that is garnered where the general statistics of the mechanics shine through (the relevant one being that a PC in 4e RAW will never take a serious but non-fatal wound when a PC looks back over there multi-level many-year career. The most they ever copped was healed by the next day).
I'll give a 3.x example to illustrate:
You can have a DM that tells you, "Roguey McRouge that hit just knocked you on your ass. The gash left on your side is bleeding (take 10 points of damage and you're prone)." Or you could have the one that said, "Hit, take 10 points of damage and you're prone." Game effects are the same whether I describe them "narratively" or not.
After the fight ends, the rogue character has no healing potions, and he doesn't have a heal stick. So he decides to make camp. He curls up under a tree to rest. The next morning he wakes up and has full hit points. How is that?
Because a 10hp wound is not enough to force a massive damage roll and from your description was not enough to put the character into negatives. As such, aside from being knocked prone, the character was still acting at capacity (and so describing anything more serious than a barely distracting flesh wound is not mechanically supported by the rules).
He had a bleeding gash and hit points damage, did his "wounds" all of a sudden close up? No, he's a 10th level character and after a rest he regains his level in hit points. Whether that "wound" was described as "physical" or not is irrelevant, after a nights rest he regains his level in hit points. No magic, no narrative connection to how his "wounds" are not there anymore. According to your definition that would be stupid.
As BryonD said before, hit points are part "damage" and part "abstract" so your analysis does not seem to disagree with his. My own way of narratively describing this is that the gash is starting to heal and causes the PC no further distraction or discomfort (but you are going to have a nice scar there in a week or so's time).
According to my definition it makes perfect sense and can be easily supported by the "narrative". "Off screen" the rogue binds his "wounds", stretches his muscles, and takes some food before curling up under the tree, the next morning he is still sore, but his "wounds" won't affect his main purpose, "Finding the Eye of Rah."
This is true for a mechanically speaking superficial wound in both editions. What I suggest you do is mechanically revisit this exact same circumstance, except this time the 10hp wound takes the PC down to -5hp (as per Hussar's guidelines). This is where I believe several posters have shown that their is a significant difference between the resulting narrative in 3e and 4e. I would be interested by your analysis.
The reason is that the "wounds", a term the DM is providing not that the mechanics are forcing on us, are part of a "pool" of resources called Hit Points. Hit Points represent all kinds of things that let you keep on fighting (physical and "metaphysical"). This has ALWAYS BEEN the definition of HP. In mechanical terms HP has never had much to do with "health" in the classical sense.
Except that probability-wise, an untended PC knocked into the negatives will almost certainly die. This is significantly different in 4e under the same circumstances.
The disconnect I'm seeing when people complain about this issue is what I'll call selective reasoning. I can find a "reason" for magic to heal "wounds". I can find a "reason" for my level to heal "wounds". But it is a bridge too far finding a "reason" for SPENT healing surges to heal "wounds".
Or to be more specific, you have magical healing and you have natural healing. Spending surges may be magical or it may be non-magical in nature. When it is non-magical in nature, you can get some weird (or technically I suppose the term is "absurd") results. This bothers some players while not others (as this thread HAS clearly demonstrated).
In 4e, if a character is "wounded" in battle, DM terms, and he spends his second wind, his "wounds" don't all of a sudden disappear. Just like the wounds of the 3.x rogue didn't miraculously disappear the next morning. That character is "narratively" digging deep and using reserves of "guts" to keep fighting. Mechanically he simply uses his second wind, SPENDS a healing surge, and keeps fighting. That healing surge is SPENT until an extended rest. His "reserves" are depleted for the rest of the day.
Fine. In all examples, the character is acting at capacity. As such, even though the "bloodied" condition can be used as a springboard for certain powers and abilities, a character in 3e or 4e who has positive hit points is functionally at capacity regardless of the damage they have taken. To describe them in this case in either 3e or 4e as seriously wounded would not be backed up by the mechanics of the game. The only possible exception to this is a failed massive damage fortitude save resulting in instant death.
To take it one step further, "narratively" you have even more options in combat. When the cleric uses Healing Word you can describe it as actually closing wounds because it is "magic". When the warlord screams at you with Inspiring Word and tells you to, "stop sniveling, and get back in the fight", you can describe it as the shame of not measuring up. You dig into your reserves and keep fighting. At the end of the fight you take a short rest to bandage wounds, stretch your muscles, and catch you breath. You SPEND healing surges to do all those things. Then, you are ready for the next challenge. You've used up "reserves" during that short rest. Resources that are no longer available for the remainder of the day. You want to have "wounds", that is what SPENT healing surges can "narratively" represent. It is up to you, just like the "wound" was "narratively" up to you.
But again there is a glaring hole here in your argument. What about damage that takes character's into the negatives and knocking them out? I don't think many would have any disagreement with the reasonableness of what you have described. Except that you have completely avoided the mechanical situation where people are saying there is a difference between 3e and 4e: when PCs go into the negatives.
At the end of the day you settle to make camp, you treat your "wounds", clean out your bandages, take some food, get a well deserved rest. In the morning you are still sore, but it won't impede your main purpose, "Finding the Eye of Rah."
That's OK if all you want in adventuring is milk, cookies and appropriately spooned out treasure parcels but what if you want the depletion of certain resources to have a more significant impact on the adventure where the PCs have tough decisions over a period of days? 3e RAW can "sort of" support this style of play depending upon what magic the DM has handed out as well as the types of PCs involved. 4e RAW as you highlight actively doesn't support this (although it can be house-ruled).
After the adventure and as part of the campaign, the DM can "narratively" describe the long recuperation period if he so chooses. The game rules do not impede that, the same way that they do not impede the DM and players coming up with their own narrative for the "wounds" in the first place.
That is why I don't have a problem with the narrative at all.
And good for you. When you discuss the negative hp situation further, you may see where some posters DO have an issue with the spectrum of possible resulting narratives.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
