I know that some people prefer full narrative or quick resolution combat. Personally, I find the "player can make shit up" just a little TOO freeform for my tastes.I like your list of principles but number (1) is tricky, because for some people combat itself is not fun at all, or they want it resolved as abstractly as possible and that's all that counts, other players will enjoy the detail and the moment to moment action. Anyway, my point being this is going to vary significantly person to person.
I'm surprised you have not come across GURPS or any RuneQuest variant in your list. I've very little experience with GURPS but lots of people swear by it, it's certainly too involved for me. As far as detailed combat systems goes RuneQuest 6 or now Mythras is the one I have most experience with. Going through your list
(SNIPPED for Brevity
Although as a whole the combat system is fairly complex, there are ways to pare it down a little. I don't use weapon Reach or the Cycle/Round system for example and I use a slightly faster way of determining attack/parry exchanges. For some people it is indeed still going to be too complex but I appreciate the piecemeal armour/hp system, the differentiated weapons and I enjoy how dramatic combats can be, with a story emerging from the choices, mechanics, chance and circumstance of each melee.
There's a free cut-down version "Mythras Imperative" Downloads which gives you character creation and the core rules system including combat.
I had GURPS recommended by some exceptionally simulative gamers who always liked tables, charts and so forth. They'd talk about how GURPS was good because it could model dodge vs. parry and different damage types, and my eyes started to glaze over. So, I never really gave GURPS a try.
I have an earlier version of Runequest (I think?), but I always found it a bit too simulative. I found it to be trying too hard (damage types and separating Parry and Dodge, again).
Full disclosure: I have a pet peeve on distinguishing too much between dodge and parry (sorta) because of experience with the Palladium System, where you could respectively Dodge, Parry, and Roll with the same attack before comparing it to your Armor Rating. It was...exhausting.
I'm cool with there being a distinction between Parry and Dodge (in fact, I think there should be), especially when it comes to distinguishing between melee and ranged combat. Shields were great (and highly favored up until full plate armor was developed) in part because they helped in melee, but also because they were incredibly useful against arrows and other ranged weapons. But in melee, you should only get one defense, that combines both parrying and dodging (the distinction between which is usually a bit muddy in sword combat anyway, at least in my experience).