There are two views on this: language creates grammar after the fact, those are rules, we need to stick to these rules, and this be the hill I die on.

The other view is more liberal. Native speakers don't care about these rules and naturally deviate from some. Not all, not all at once, and not always to an extent that is recognized by the majority of speakers. But occasionally, certain uses make it. The use of the past tense in constructions that by the laws of grammar should require the past participle is a feature of Black American English. The popularity of hiphop and rap have spread this all over the world. With the now much derided term "woke" it has even reached other languages.

By heart I'm a narrow minded stickler for the rules myself. The nonsensical use of "literally" still makes me mad. But that horse is so far out of the barn you can barely see it on the horizon. Fighting the fight for clean past tense/past participle separation may be one against windmills.

English as a Germanic language comes from a protolanguage that probably only had irregular verbs in the vein of sing-sang-sung. Over time, and probably out of desperation by people who needed to learn it as a second language via migration and mingling, the verbs we now consider regular (team -ed) came about later. Language changes. English is living proof with its spelling making no sense at all and clear influences of Viking and Norman invasions and the spread around the world via the Empire. American English made spelling changes. Indian (Asia) English developed its own unique characteristics that may deviate from the King's version. There is such a thing as EU English where you can see what happens when mostly non-natives go to town in it.

Grammar came after the spoken version. It's like a constitution that can be changed by quiet, gradual consensus.

I don't understand what the issue is. I'm sitting here trying to figure out when "ran" is used inappropriately. I only use it for simple past

I have a feeling this is advice for people learning English as a second/third/hundredth language. If you want to sound like a native speaker, this is bad advice.

Who exactly is this for? I've literally never heard or seen anyone misuse "ran."

"I run an hour that day" doesn't sound too bad.

"I run the business last year" is plain confusing.

much more appropriate

Says who? -er- According to whom?

Is this so you can show superiority? Separate those pesky lower classes out? Language is spoken the way it is spoken and it changes. "have ran" is something that would have gotten me yelled at as a kid and it, honestly, is still kinda grating. However, it's not my business. If I can understand that speaker, language is doing its job.

• He has run the company.

This sounds less correct than:

• He ran the company.

Both imply that "he" has been running the company from some point in the past until the present time of the statement or a past time. Neither carries an implication of anything happening in the future tense. Obviously, "he has ran the company" is improper English, but both examples above are correct for the context.

ran ran ran ran ran ran ran ran ran ran