Past modals

Must have forgotten supplies the requested retrospective deduction. Not answering has other possible explanations, so the sentence expresses the speaker’s confidence rather than a verified fact.

Yes. “She can’t have seen us” presents a negative deduction. A speaker can overlook evidence or be mistaken; the grammar does not independently establish the actual event.

Must have forgotten expresses a strong retrospective deduction. “I’m sure he has forgotten” can also express that judgement; confidence alone does not confirm the event.

Should supplies the requested ought-to evaluation. Could have can describe opportunity in another message, while should have can also express an expectation when its context differs.

The matches describe the intended speaker readings. Must/can’t have are judgements, not proof; might have leaves a possibility open; should have is criticism in the supplied missed-call context, but can express expectation elsewhere.

Should gives the requested ought-to evaluation in this criticism context. Do not generalise non-performance to every should-have sentence: a delivery expectation may still need checking.

Example: “I should have called you earlier.”

Must have left supplies all three parts. Must left drops have; must have leave lacks the participle. This is a form exercise, not evidence that the phone was actually left at home.

Can’t have expresses the speaker’s negative deduction here. No verified record or future instruction is supplied. Separate the judgement from proof before retelling it.

Should have gives an expectation here. The unchecked tracking record leaves both arrival and non-arrival unresolved. Do not turn an expectation into either confirmation.

I did not call directly supplies the omission; should have evaluates it. For a new sentence, find the evidence of non-performance instead of guessing it from the modal.

Could have describes the ferry opportunity; chose the bus supplies the actual choice. Cancellation and using both are added claims. Rebuild opportunity and choice as separate notes.

Might have leaves the explanation open, and the record remains unchecked. Neither a definite entrance route nor non-entry is established. Keep the evidence gap visible.

Should have sent uses have + participle. Should of is a spelling error in this frame; should had also fails the modal auxiliary pattern. This written check does not assess how you pronounce the words.

The age context locates a past ability. Could have swum would create a different retrospective opportunity or possibility reading. Diagnose the intended meaning before changing a form.

The passive leaves the agent unstated and might keeps the event possible. Naming a caretaker or deliberate damage invents information. Preserve both uncertainty and the unnamed agent.

The first update preserves the observation and marks an explanation as possible. All day, forgetting and tomorrow’s access are not supplied. Remove unsupported time and cause claims before strengthening a conclusion.

Should have states the expectation; no scan establishes arrival, storage conditions or damage. If you selected an outcome, locate the missing evidence and rewrite the note with status unconfirmed.

Must have marks the visitor’s confidence. A locked door does not independently establish key location, intention or spare-key availability. State the observation first, then label the explanation as an inference.

Did not acknowledge supplies the omission; should have replied evaluates it. Do not replace the explicit past account with a confirmed or purely future reply. Identify both clauses’ jobs before revising.

Took the stairs is the explicit event. Could have used describes an option; it does not establish a breakdown. Separate the available route from the route chosen.

May have suggests a possibility and have not compared identifies the missing check. Neither confirmed reuse nor confirmed originality follows. Keep the unperformed comparison in the summary.

The argument depends on the stated times. Can’t have gives the speaker’s negative conclusion, not verification of the clocks or the actual alternative route. Check the premise before reporting the deduction as settled.

Might not have leaves non-reading possible, not certain. Reading remains possible too; refusal and a warning are unstated. Do not turn a tentative negative into a confirmed failure or intention.

The Tuesday planning context places Friday ahead. Should have finished looks back from that future point at expected completion. A perfect-modal form is not automatically past regret; locate the reference time.

The second clause supplies arrival before closure. Could have been worse compares with an imagined alternative; it does not make that worse alternative actual. Retain the actual outcome separately.

The wrong-room account supports the regret/evaluation reading, similar to should have checked. It does not predict a room change or confirm a successful check. Find the stated consequence before retelling the evaluation.

The note explicitly reports replacement; might have marks the damage explanation as tentative. Neither deliberate action nor a responsible individual is supplied. Attribute the source without treating every part as equally confirmed.

Obligation and deduction are different meanings. Neither alone is a departure record. If you treated both as verified events, label the obligation and the speaker inference separately, then look for actual departure evidence.

The explicit first sentence supplies the posting. Shouldn’t have evaluates it as a mistake in this context; it does not erase the event. Keep event and evaluation separate when proposing a repair.

In fact, I did confirms taking the opportunity. Could have alone does not compel non-performance. Read the resolving second sentence before deciding the event history.

The log is the identified unexamined source. Might have does not settle sounding, failure or a count. Name the missing check rather than inventing a result.

Isha is the source of the reported judgement. No admission or independent record is supplied. Preserve attribution instead of promoting a reported deduction into verified history.

The passive leaves the handler unnamed, and might leaves the delivery unresolved. Reception is a possible destination, not a confirmed one; theft is not alleged. Preserve those limits in your reply.

The request to check leaves the history open. Without a stated omission or sent record, should have is insufficient to establish either sending or failure. Ask for the outbox evidence before choosing a stronger account.

The school context describes ability, while yesterday’s clause explicitly states a choice not to enter. Could need not always take have for past reference. Preserve the distinction rather than repairing an already grammatical ability statement.

An empty folder supports an observation, not the added agent, intention or universal loss claim. The revision preserves alternatives and a check. Remove unsupported certainty before deciding the next action.

Compare evidence, reference time, modal meaning and the proposed next action. This is local written self-review, not an automatic correctness or proficiency judgement.

The driver’s later report conflicts with the earlier expectation. It does not supply a new arrival time or establish permanent non-arrival. Update status with attribution instead of defending a stale expectation.

Accepted and attended resolve the actual choice. Could have does not override those explicit statements. In a fresh handoff, preserve the sentence that resolves uncertainty.

Compare evidence, reference time, modal meaning and the proposed next action. This is local written self-review, not an automatic correctness or proficiency judgement.

The unrefreshed display is an identified alternative explanation. May have remains tentative. Name and perform a relevant check before strengthening a claim; this fictional task does not itself run a diagnostic.

A contains explicit non-booking, while B places an expectation at tomorrow. The shared should-have frame does not make their event histories identical. Reconstruct time and evidence before choosing a label.