Past + Would vs Past + Will

[JbhB682]

Source : Made up

i) The company announced that they would move into asia next month
ii) The company announced that they will move into asia next month
iii) The company announced that they are moving into asia next month
iv) The company announced that they will be moving into asia next month
v) The company announced that they were to be moving into asia next month

[JbhB682]

Hi Experts, i was wondering if my understanding is accurate

Today's date : May 9th 2021

1st sentence) Announcement was made on April 1st 2021 and they moved into asia on May 1st 2021 (both are in the past tense)

2nd sentence) Announcement was made on April 15th 2021 and they will move into asia as of May 15th 2021 (May 15th has not come as of May 9th 2021, i.e. today)

3rd sentence) Announcement was made on April 15th 2021 (or any date in the past)
i) As of May 9th 2021 - it is still true that we are going to make the move to asia


4th sentence) not sure how the 4th sentence is different from the 3rd sentence

[esledge]

Source : Made up

i) The company announced that they would move into asia next month
ii) The company announced that they will move into asia next month
iii) The company announced that they are moving into asia next month
iv) The company announced that they will be moving into asia next month
v) The company announced that they were to be moving into asia next month

Overall,
(1) "Next month" doesn't give enough detail to focus on May 1 vs. May 15th distinctions in your interpretations above. The main difference you get from the tense of the "move" verb is how the company is thinking of the move at the time of the announcement.
(2) The future tense and "next month" are not relative to the time of the announcement, but relative to NOW. So if the announcement was on April 1 and today is May 18, "next month" is June.
(3) The difference between "would" and "will" is degree of certainty.

Meaning:

i) At the time of the announcement (in the past), the company planned to move into Asia the month after now (not the month following the announcement, unless those are the same month!), but the conditional "would" acknowledges that this move was still hypothetical as of the time of the announcement.

ii) The timeline is like i), but with a little more certainty: the company "will" move into Asia next month, so as of now, the move is thought to be sure to happen in the month after the present month.

iii) This one is just wrong. The "are" would indicate that they "are" moving at the time of the announcement (in the past), but that conflicts with the "next month" modifier that goes with the "are moving" verb. I think this variation would be better than your initial iii) example, though I'd still prefer this with "would be moving" or "would move":

Better iii), but not ideal: The company announced earlier this year that they are moving into Asia this month.

iv) This is most like ii), only the progressive "will be moving" indicates ongoing action in the future (the month after the present month) whereas "will move" is just a future action at the same time. The GMAT would probably prefer ii), but if you saw iv), there would probably be other (unrelated) reasons provided to eliminate that choice.

v) "Were to be moving" indicates that at the time of the announcement (in the past), the company intended to move into Asia the month after the present month. This tense is generally for events that were planned/anticipated, but didn't actually happen. I think you'd only see this tense used if something about the plan had changed since the announcement was made. For example:

The company announced that they were to be moving into Asia next month; however, the pandemic has disrupted those plans.

The "were to be" tense is often used for events that are bad or unthinkable:

If the company were to be affected by the pandemic, it might not be able to move into Asia next month.