Wrong again. You have merely restated your initial incorrect assertion. Your premise is invalid; sequence and timing is not equivalent to acting or failing to act. The imperative encompasses both the President and the Senate because the Senate cannot, by deliberately refusing to act, lawfully, i.e. constitutionally prevent the President from carrying out his duty.
Let's try putting it another way:
1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (at least it's supposed to be).
2. The Senate is free to make its rules, but Senate rules are not even ordinary laws, much less part of the Constitution.
3. When a Senate rule is either devised or is used to subvert, undermine, obstruct or otherwise prevent the members of the Senate or any other Constitutional Officer from carrying out their mandatory duties, the rule is invalid. The Constitution always trumps procedural rules.
You're just going round and round in circles. It's not possible for them to prevent him from doing his duty, because his duty is to make the appointment provided he gets their advice and consent.
It's not a question of "sequence and timing", just a question of meeting the proper conditions. If the conditions are met (that is, if he gets their advice and consent), then it's his duty to make the appointment. If the conditions aren't met, it's not his duty.