You have not really answered my basic question, "How do we distinguish
between past reference and past tense?" Your comments show that your
approach is completely theory-dependent. ...
But, Rolf, your own question here is "completely theory-dependent". You
don't even ask the logically prior question whether there is a
meaningful distinction to be made between past reference and past tense,
or whether this distinction is part of David's theoretical framework.
You simply assume that this is the most basic distinction which must and
can be made, and then pressure David to make this distinction. But there
are other possible and meaningful theoretical frameworks in which there
is no such distinction, or in which this distinction is far less
fundamental and less significant. And anyway it may well be that, even
if the distinction is a valid one, the evidence from a dead language is
insufficient for it to be made in this case - which would imply that
your model of the Hebrew verb is a theoretically valid but practically
unproductive one.