1.
The first question is about the tense we should use after "as soon as". In a sentence such as this:
I had left when the phone rang.
you need to use the past perfect in the second clause to show which action came first and which – second. However, when you use “as soon as”, the sequence is clear and it is normally a matter of preference which one to use, so both your examples will be correct. In American English the preference would normally be past simple. The past perfect would emphasize the fact that one action was complete before the other one occurred. (an explanation given in Grammar for Teachers by Andrea DeCapua)
2.
In the second pair of examples they are both correct again. It is unnecessary to use past perfect because the time is mentioned and the sequence of events is clear. Also, the actions are described in the order in which they occurred. You can use the past perfect if you want, to emphasize that one was before the other.
3.
The third question was about the sentence
He said that the moment he first met her, he felt something special and began to keep a diary.
The actual words the man said must have been:
"The moment I first met her, I felt something special and began to keep a diary."
When you report his words and begin with “He said”, the entire phrase shifts one tense back and becomes:
He said that the moment he had first met her, he had felt something special and had begun to keep a diary.
Although this is the grammatically correct sentence, it is very common that the past simple does not become past perfect in indirect speech. When reporting, native speakers tend to make present tenses past ("I am studying" - "She said she was studying") but very often do not care to make the past tenses perfect, as grammar books always teach us we should.
That is what makes both these sentences correct: "He said that the moment he first met her, he felt something special and began to keep a diary." and “He said that the moment he had first met her, he had felt something special and had begun to keep a diary.” (have a look at the end of this page)
First past perfect and pluperfect refer to the same tense. They are synonyms. Look up pluperfect in any dictionary to verify this. Here at onelook dictionary are more than two dozen dictionaries to get you started.
Second, please see this answer to When is the past perfect exactly needed? It does a terrific job of stating when the past perfect (or pluperfect--they mean the same thing) is necessary.
In general your sentence 1B is grammatical, but it represents rather an incomplete thought. And it is not necessary to use the past perfect/pluperfect tense here. The present perfect or simple past would both be better choices, because they would not represent incomplete thoughts.
Your 1C adds more information to the response but still either the present perfect or simple past would be more common. You don't need the past perfect/pluperfect there because it is clear from logic which past action happened first, namely that you called him first.
In 2B, there is no reason for using the past perfect/pluperfect tense. The simple past is fine. You mention only one past action. And in fact both uses of the verb order refer to that same past action. It would seem strange to think that one occurrence of the same past action can come before another occurrence of the same!
The first sentence of 2C is grammatical But by itself gives an incomplete thought. There is only one past action mentioned, and it occurs two days back. Thus the simple past is better here because you are talking about one action completed in the past. Having us wait until the second sentence to hear the most recent past action (Yesterday when I opened the box) makes it awkward.
The second sentence of 2C is the only sentence in which the past tense/pluperfect tense is used in a way that is intended. You have two actions and you place one of them before the first one. This is pleasant sounding and appropriate.
For example sentences and a much better explanation, see the answer I link to above. And thanks for asking such a good question.
Best Answer
Here the tenses are different, repsectively present and simple past. However Pluperfect = Past Perfect
can't have done and couldn't have done are both in the same tense but the modals are different.
You are asking about the epistemic modality, that is the degree of confidence.
Increasing order of uncertainty
can have done is not grammatical, you should use must have done instead. However in a negative sentence it is fine:
The difference between can't have done and couldn't have done is that the latter is about something we are sure of, whereas the former is about ability/possiblilty of an event that didn't happen.
Compare
That's uncertain, I don't know if she did
It was possible for her to use the car, but she didn't
Note: In some cases people use could have to mean may have/might have with could have
Lastly Should and Would don't have other forms