Well I can partially answer some of your questions.
Nobody is going to have more than one sword fight and not get injured. Nobody is that good. Also a serious cut to an arm or leg (a favorite target in battle) might not strike anything vital (no organs for example) so with minimal blood loss and no infection there is a good chance a person can survive. The same can apply to a sword slash across the chest. The rib cage is designed to protect those vitals and it takes an injury of about 4 inches deep to reach those organs and be fatal.
A pointed weapon (such as a spear) can cause very clean wounds and is heavy enough to damage bones so it might not be fatal either.
So there are a lot of ways to gat banged up in a fight and not die. Considering a man might have his first fight when he is 14-15 (depending in the culture) and continue fighting well into old age (the Anglo-Saxon Earl Byrhtnoth was in his 60s when he died at the Battle of Maldon in 991) there would be lots of chances to get and survive injuries.
Agree fully about the frequency of injuries, that was one of the questions ... an actual 'warrior' would probably show injuries, (who knows ... some perhaps even from training) and at least in some cases, they can be clearly distinguished forensically from accidents while doing peasant's work...
The question I have is just,
if we find actual weapons such as spears in the grave of a person (male or female)
-- knives and axes could be everyday tools, and bows for hunting, spears probably less so --
and we've also come to the conclusion that they were not intended for the afterlife
... does this automatically mean the person actually used these weapons in anger?
Even if it was only in self-defence?
For all we know a person of a certain social status, even if not of a martial caste, might have gotten a 'spear of honor' or something
- it would be an item of high significance in their life but they might have never fought with it.
If we see battle.typical wounds on them, then we can be somewhat confident they were warrior types.
So it kind of boils down to how do you want to define "warrior"? Is it someone who fights for a living (or culturally is not considered a "man" until they kill an enemy), is it a yeoman who is expected to fight when necessary or called up by his leaders (Greek Hoplite) or is it someone who once picked up a weapon to defend themselves?
Well I guess the term "Warrior" in common usage does in some way imply it's a profession, a calling, or an identity?
So the first for sure;
the second yes if they were actually ever called up and carried out their duty.
The third I'd say is not what we usually mean by a warrior
but for instance someone not of an official warrior caste who nevertheless killed or incapacitated an enemy in improvised defensive combat might still have some honor and recognition given to them by their society
... maybe up to and including getting buried with the type of weapon they had used to gain that honor.
We just don't know ...