It was 7 o'clock. Tom should be having a meeting.

[lagoo]

Hello, I made up two sentences and gave my own understanding as below. I’d appreciated it if you could point out any mistakes I’ve made.
1) It was 7 o'clock. Tom should be having a meeting.
Tom wasn’t having a meeting at 7 o’clock, but he was going to have a meeting soon.

2) It was 7 o'clock. Tom should have been having a meeting.
a. The speaker refers to a possible situation that Tom was having a meeting at 7 o’clock.
b. The speaker feels annoyed that Tom wasn’t having a meeting at 7 o’clock.

 

[emsr2d2]

Hello, I made up two sentences and gave my own understanding as below. I’d [STRIKE]appreciated[/STRIKE] appreciate it if you could point out any mistakes I’ve made.

1) It was 7 o'clock. Tom should be having a meeting.
Tom wasn’t having a meeting at 7 o’clock, but he was going to have a meeting soon.

2) It was 7 o'clock. Tom should have been having a meeting.
a. The speaker refers to a possible situation that Tom was having a meeting at 7 o’clock.
b. The speaker feels annoyed that Tom wasn’t having a meeting at 7 o’clock.

Sentence 1 is incorrect so your understanding of it is irrelevant.
Sentence 2 is correct but neither interpretation works. It simply means that a meeting was happening at 7, Tom should have been at that meeting but he was not.

 

[Raymott]

There's a possibility that Tom was at the meeting, in a slightly different scenario.

A: "I think I saw Tom last night at 7 o'clock, but it was getting dark, so I'm not sure."
B: "If it was 7 o'clock, Tom should have been at a meeting."

In this case, either A saw Tom, and so Tom wasn't at the meeting, or A didn't see Tom, and Tom could have been at the meeting. So 2a is correct in that context.

 

[lagoo]

There's a possibility that Tom was at the meeting, in a slightly different scenario.

A: "I think I saw Tom last night at 7 o'clock, but it was getting dark, so I'm not sure."
B: "If it was 7 o'clock, Tom should have been at a meeting."

In this case, either A saw Tom, and so Tom wasn't at the meeting, or A didn't see Tom, and Tom could have been at the meeting. So 2a is correct in that context.

Thanks. With emsr2d2's and your help, I feel comfortable in understanding the meanings of sentence 2. But sentence 1 in my OP seems pretty much logical and I can’t figure out why it’s wrong.
1) It was 7 o'clock. Tom should be having a meeting.
To get a better contrast, let’s move the time line to the present.
It is 7 o'clock. Tom shall be having a meeting. (I think it maybe mean that Tom shall have a meeting soon, may 5 minutes past 7.)
But if I backshift the timeline, that sentence will be just as sentence 1.

 

[emsr2d2]

But sentence 1 in my OP seems pretty much logical and I can’t figure out why it’s wrong.

1) It was 7 o'clock. Tom should be having a meeting.

The problem there is the combination of the past simple "was" with the present "should be having".

If you're saying it at 7 o'clock, it is "It is 7 o'clock. Tom should be having a meeting".
If you're saying it after 7 o'clock, it is "It was 7 o'clock. Tom should have been having a meeting".