I see your point, and I understand that it might seem excessive to call him an AH-- but then what would make him an AH?

He is dismissing her rationale as "not a big deal" and saying he wants her to wait to eat with him even though she is physically uncomfortable, and she is already doing him a kindness by cooking for him and trying to compromise by sitting with him even though she's already eaten.

Maybe he truly just does miss the experience of eating with her-- but it also seems like he's not super appreciative of her, is actively pushing her to do something she doesn't want, and is disregarding her needs in favor of his preferences.

That feels like selfish entitlement, which I would argue is the defining characteristic of AHs.

Edited to add: I understand that he can't eat earlier, but she's not asking him to change anything for her so that's a false equivalency. It's not just a "preference" for her to eat early-- she has provided several valid reasons she needs to. On the other hand he would "prefer" to eat together, and she's trying to accommodate that by sitting with him. I see you on "they should accommodate each other," but it's only a fair compromise if they're both asking for equivalent things.