"It had to be (someone) vs. "it had to have been (someone)" when drawing conclusions

Question

It's said that the grammar structure had to have done can be used instead of must have done when drawing a conclusion about a past event. For example:

You said somebody played the piano 6 pm yesterday. It had to have been Kate. She always does.

But, I've heard people say it had to be instead of it had to have been, it seems, in the same way. For example:

You said somebody played the piano 6 pm yesterday. It had to be Kate. She always does.

Is there any difference in meaning between it had to be and it had to have been when drawing conclusions about past events?

Answer 1

Yes, there is a difference and it can be a little confusing.

You said somebody played the piano 6 pm yesterday. It had to have been Kate. She always does.

This means you can't think of anyone else who might have been playing the piano at that time.

You said somebody played the piano 6 pm yesterday. It had to be Kate. She always does.

Most people would take this to mean the same thing, but native speakers would usually say "That had to be Kate."

"It had to be" can also mean there was a requirement at the time.

Both Kate and Paul are great piano players, I wonder why they picked Kate?
It had to be Kate because they needed someone who could also play the flute and Paul can't do that.