[aib]

(Not directed at the parent comment but the thread in general)

I don't know why people are more interested in labeling it than explaining it. (Although admittedly, they go side by side.)

Every grammatical aspect of "past time with -miş" (which is how I learned it) is the same as the other one, "past time with -di". As in, I cannot think of a sentence where replacing one suffix with the other would result in a syntax error, or any semantic difference other than certainty.

A point of confusion might be verbs made into adjectives using -miş, although I'm having a hard time coming up with many examples where there's an ambiguity between the adjective and the "tense". Doesn't help that the assertive(?) case is without suffix, so "pişmiş" might mean "[it is] [a] cooked [one]" or "[Apparently it was] cooked".

Another point of parallelism between the two past "tenses" is that it's perfectly valid to answer a question in one with the other. (Or is this a general language or tense thing? Hmm.)

[anticensor]

That's a Turkish&Bulgarian thing, many other languages with inferentials have inferentials with aorist aspect, not ones with preterite aspect.