Every hunt I have ever been on had the same rules: any wounded animal is considered to be taken, and a trophy fee is to be paid. I‘ve never felt the need to play lawyer (being one!), and get into a precise definition of what “wounded” means. I don’t understand you to be playing lawyer either, to be clear, but rather interested in the interpretation of the word ‘wounded’ in this context.
My view is that ‘wounded,’ at least in this context, without further definition, should (and would) be given its ordinary, everyday meaning. And, again in my view, that means the animal has been ‘hurt’ in some way. The ‘wound’ need not be fatal, and I expect that in many cases where a drop of blood is found but an animal never recovered that the animal has in fact, recovered, but nevertheless, the trophy fee was paid without discussion.
In this case, your question focuses on the fact that those involved are likely aware that the ‘wound’ is not fatal, but again, there is no requirement that a wound be, or be likely to be, fatal, for an animal to be considered wounded.
I don’t like to admit it, but I’ve paid trophy fees on animals which were never recovered. I try to convince myself that they weren’t badly hurt, but that’s just trying to salve my conscience. A more useful reaction is that I resolve to take more time and shoot better in future! I like to believe that this results in some sort of good karma coming out of a bad situation, and I chalk up recovering a mountain nyala which I wounded some five days after the poor shot, to that karma!