He shouldn't have read that book without me!

[BestBuddy]

I've learned that the past simple doesn't necessarily mean completion of the object (only the action that took place in the past), while the perfect aspect 99% imply completion of the object. So I want to ask a question about the language logic. The key word is logic.

A: Alex read a book while Amy watched TV. (not the whole one)
B: What book did Alex read? (The "B" may not know that it was not the whole book, he just heard what "A" said)
A: He read War and Peace.
B: He shouldn't have read that book without me! I'll accuse him of having read that book! He won't be able to pretend not to have read that book!

If those perfect constructions are wrong, what should we change them to?
If they are not wrong, why do everybody say that the perfect aspect always about completion without specifying that it is necessary to separate the action from the object?

 

[5jj]

The last line of that dialogue is so contrived that it is not worth analysing.

 

[BestBuddy]

The last line of that dialogue is so contrived that it is not worth analysing.

I'm not asking about stylistics of the language. I'm asking about grammar. That line is still possible but may be incorrect grammatically. This is the point of my question. Sorry, if you don't want to answer. If it were better for you to imagine, I can make some changes in the lines even though it won't change the main point of the question.

A: Alex read a book while Amy watched TV. (not the whole one)
B: What book did Alex read? (The "B" may not know that it was not the whole book, he just heard what "A" said)
A: He read War and Peace.
B: He shouldn't have read that book without me!

 

[5jj]

B: He shouldn't have read that book without me!

B's final utterance does not suggest that B believes that Alex read the whole of War and Peace on that occasion.