More deeply into conditonials between hypothetical and indicative, featuring backshifing

After thinking this or that ways, finally I have been confronted to this question: Could there be the sentences which have 2nd conditonals structure form only(If S did ~, S would V ~~) and which was backshifted from the indicative present form(If S do(es)~~, S will V ~~) If so, it must be two ways of interpreting that sentence. One is to view that as a backshifted indicative conditional past, the other is to view that as a non-backshifted 2nd conditionals.

Take a look at this. (1) If he can be more brave, he will confess to her. If this (1) is backshifted, can it be like this? (2) It was clear that (or His brother said) (1-1)If he could be more brave, he would confess to her. In my humble opinion, I can’t understand how (1) can be backshifted to (1-1) without avoiding the ambiguity between indicative and 2nd conditionals. If then, the meaning or propostion of (1) and those of (1-1) is far different, I think. In addition to that, I think the "would" in (1-1) shoud not be used or expressions other than "would" can be used there, for example, using simple past with no past auxilaries(confessed), or using adverb like probably(probably confessed)

That is, like the sentence of Picasso, the presuppotion is way too different if that is veiwed as a indicative conditional past(like the point of your view). If so, the author supposeed there were two possibilites of whether Picasso could judge or not. But if that is veiwd as 2nd conditionals, the author supposes only one case that Picasso was not able to judge, is not able to judge(if he were alive) and won’t judge the work. Under this presupposition, the author chose to use 2nd conditonals. He closed the other possibility of Picasso’s being able to judge the work he was making then.

I have never written this complicating, messy writing explaining grammar before. So If misunderstood the first answer, all bucks are on me.

My first question here