And to me it sounds like you are not talking about the same "matters" at all (what was i willing to sacrifice to save the village and similar things) which is beyond the scope of how your character responds to given individual threat actually mattering with regards to the quality of that defense (choices mattering tactically yes altering the outcome in a numeric fashion is distinct from what you are talking about ). They use the same word "mattering" but arent the same. And you seem to insist one obviates the desire or need for the other not seeing how they could.
Note how attacks are often allowed those kinds of impact both of quality and resource expense, but defenses are not in D&D land. I can choose an attack that has a less likely success but a bigger payload for instance or one which has a strategic cost.
One could see stylistic mattering as "expressing your character". For instance at the failure level its like describing hit point style (why didnt that knife just outright kill my character). My halfling combatant describes the intervention of happen chance, Skillful combatant describes a progression of fatigue occasionally punctuated by something else, if that skill is a spell caster it might be describing his personal shielding weakening failing, Tough guy combatant describes actual ability to take lots of real wounds. (theoretically could all have the same number of hit points). PAR can enable the above if the player describes their failures.
D&D combat whether we describe it that way or not is to an extent implemented as a hit point race. 5e monsters do seem to encourage seeing it that way. Sometimes it isn't with afflictions and temporary impairments character movement and resource expenditures may allow it not to be entirely so.
Well, not gonna be able to change anyone's religiin but i dint fit things into the same discrete cubbyholes as you seem to. So we wont agree.
But a few points...
"To some extent..." Well ok sure, to some extent in some situatiins some 5e combat may be seen as a hit point race. But the degree to which it is is able to vary vastly, so much that it is - in my games - rarely what wins or rather what determins who wins.
But that can vary from game to game and combat to combat. An encounter can have so few tactically useful features, an enemy can use so few tactically useful,options and a group can make so few tactically useful choices that it does boil down to winners determined by rate of hp done.
In those cases i can see defensive choices being rather dull.
But a combat setup can offer a lot more, adverssries can be more conplex and group can engage a lot more approaches and outcomes can be hinging on a lot more choices made than hp done.
Just requires valuing those in the game. In my last game, sessiin a 1 hp damage action caused a concentration failure that was big for the scene and success. Same character could have went with a stronger effect on another foe, but this was a "defensive choice" to try and force more saves hoping that broke concentrstion. (So, thats back to cubbyholing things - we saw this as a defensive move - one that mattered - for more than just story fluff - not fitting your cubby.)
Easily in that fight i would ssy a third to half the actions were defensive - driven by circumstances, scenery and tactics (as well as the "story matters" stuff like say, you know, objectives beyond "flatten duh other guy".
Are there sometimes fights where these things dont matter - sure - but in our games those are not the ones that matter - outcome is not in question - many times avoided - other times they are seeds (hooks) not challenges.
But to each his own.