Let's first talk about simple present tense. John : "I have a fever." John said that he has a fever. Here no change in tense because John still has a fever.
Now take an example of present perfect tense. John : "I have lost my keys." John said that he has lost his key. Here no change in tense because the effect of losing key (he can't get into his home) can still be seen, heard at the time of reporting.
First tell me is this 'has lost' correct in indirect speech under the condition that effect of loosing key can still be seen at the time of reporting ?
Now my question is something which is not an example of reported speech. 1) "I noticed that the clock has stopped." And 2) "The president learned that the earthquake has caused havoc all across the country.
Are these two sentences grammatically correct under the condition that clock has recently stopped and its effect can still be seen ? And under the condition that earthquake has recently come and its effect such as havoc all across the country can still be seen ?
You see my take on it is, if the simple present tense is not back shifted under the condition that words are still true at the time of reporting then present perfect tense can also be left unchanged under the condition that situation is still relevant at the time of reporting even if the main verb is in the past tense.
And I also feel that grammar rule is quite logical and correct but if the situation is still relevant then I believe that back shifting of present perfect tenses become optional. So what do you think about this. Did I get it right?