The well-worn adage `time heals all wounds` is at best a conciliatory misnomer. At worst, negligent misguidance. For time alone heals nothing. I have met people who are still pissed off over having been "wronged" (and I use that term loosely) generations ago. They're not just reminiscent, they are actively angry. "Loosely" because many recollections are simply-constructed mono-directional perceptions lacking the breadth of comprehension; no understanding of either self nor group dynamics - they see it no other way than how they believe it to be - and remain upset despite any length of time. That's not healthy by any measuring stick.
But if time truly doesn't heal all wounds, what does? And why is it attributed to time? The answer is something I can't find any other way to express except internal dialectics. Historically (and lifted straight from Wikipedia), the "dialectical method is discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter guided by reasoned arguments." What I am calling internal dialectics is that same discourse with ourselves.
What time provides those of us who think, is simply a measured succession of unidirectional duration. Better perhaps than a blanket healing of all wounds, what we get from time is a measure duration in which to analyze, then synthesize the source of, and events surrounding, our wounds. Analysis affords us the opportunity separate our wounds into its constituent elements - the components which make up the whole, and study those individually through filters of differentiating personalities, motivations, and intents until we (hopefully) understand the entire prismatic spectrum of human behavior up to and including our own. Synthesis is simply this in reverse - putting these individual pieces, which have hopefully been altered by our comprehension - back into place, for a more realistic picture of what transpired and the causation which led to our pain.
What we should have at the conclusion of this exercise is a more realistic view of events, secure in the knowledge of how things unfolded and why. Regret of course remains a valid recourse, without which we may be overlooking a valid emotional component. Regret is an unwieldy beast which can certainly bridge the chasm of both reason and emotion, thus by definition immune to dialectics. "Reasoned arguments" don't bode well against feelings of loss. Perhaps, given the attenuation of loss, that is something time can heal.
But certainly not, "all wounds."