On a point of order, chapter 12 of O'Brien and Bosc, “The Process of Debate”, says the following:
Dilatory motions are superseding motions intended to dispose of the original question before the House either for the time being or permanently. Although dilatory motions are often moved for the express purpose of causing delay, they may [not] be used to advance the business of the House. Thus, dilatory motions are used both by the government and the opposition.
Dilatory motions can only be moved by a Member who has been recognized by the Chair in the regular course of debate, and not on a point of order.
That is as you previously noted.
Dilatory motions include motions: to proceed to...Orders of the Day; to proceed to another order of business; to postpone consideration of a question until a later date;to adjourn the House; and to adjourn the debate. The Standing Orders indicate that dilatory motions are receivable “when a question is under debate”; however, they have also been moved when there was no question under debate during Routine Proceedings. The Chair has found in order motions that the House proceed to the next [motion] under Routine Proceedings, and...the House proceed to...Orders of the Day. However, a motion to move an item under Routine Proceedings, other than the next one in the sequence, was ruled out of order on the grounds that the House should proceed from item to item in the usual order. Unlike the previous question, dilatory motions may be proposed while an amendment to a motion is [currently] under debate.
And here is the key:
When a dilatory motion is moved and seconded, the Chair must be provided with its text in writing.
That has not been done; the motion is therefore out of order.