On the verb form in the first clause of constructions using "and" to connect action and consequence

Yes, your analysis is getting close. :)

You're touching on many of the essential issues. Some of those issues have come up before, but usually they come up individually (and often they are given bad answers).

Let me comment on this:

• You do this one more time and I'll slap you.

That example seems to have the form of a clause-coordination where an imperative clause is the first element in that coordination, and that type of coordination is commonly interpreted as a conditional (2002 CGEL, pages 937-9). (Though, it could perhaps be reasonable to also consider your example as coordinating two declarative clauses.)

That kind of coordination involves an asymmetrical "AND" coordination (2002 CGEL, page 1301). That is: 'X and Y' implicates 'if X then Y'. Examples:

• [28.i] I express the slightest reservation and he accuses me of disloyalty.

• [28.ii] Come over here and you'll be able to see better.

• [28.iii] Do that again and you'll be fired.

And here are two more examples, where the first element is not an imperative clause (2002 CGEL, page 1301):

• I only have to express the slightest reservation and he accuses me of disloyalty.

• I suggest you come over here and then you'll be able to see better.

Also, be aware that imperatives can also have 3rd person subjects, and also 3rd person vocatives (2002 CGEL, pages 927-8):

• [8.ii] Kim, you be umpire please. -- [vocative "Kim", and subject "you"]

• [9.i.a] Somebody at the front, write your name on the board. -- [vocative]

• [9.i.a] Somebody at the front write your name on the board. -- [subject]

There's also the older related post: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/137100/57102

And of course, imperatives can have an overt 2nd person subject (2002 CGEL, pages 925-6):

• [5.i] You be wicket-keeper and I'll bowl.

• [6.i] (Just) you watch where you put your feet.

• [6.ii] You mind your own business.

Now let's get back to your example that seems to be in the form of a clause-coordination where an imperative clause is the first element in that coordination: "You do this one more time and I'll slap you". Here's a related excerpt from CGEL, pages 937-8:

9.5 Imperatives interpreted as conditionals

When an imperative is the first element in a clause-coordination, it is commonly interpreted as a conditional:

[39]

• i. Ask him about his business deals and he quickly changes the subject.

• ii. Do that again and you'll regret it.

• iii. Persuade her to agree and I'll be forever in your debt.

• iv. Don't make him the centre of attention and he gets in a huff.

Thus we understand "if you ask him about his business deals he quickly changes the subject", and so on. The examples illustrate the prototypical case, where the second clause is declarative and overtly linked to the imperative by and. The conditional interpretation derives from the implicative of consequence that is commonly conveyed by and -- compare I'll offer him a 10% discount and he's bound to take it. The first clause is usually positive, but it is just possible for it to be negative, as in [iv]; the form of the negative shows clearly that it is indeed the imperative construction that we are dealing with here.

Also, notice their example that uses two declaratives in the clause-coordination: I'll offer him a 10% discount and he's bound to take it. There's also example [28.i] I express the slightest reservation and he accuses me of disloyalty.

This info might be enough for you to complete your own analysis, to figure out what is going on in your examples. If you have any questions, feel to ask and I'll try to update this post accordingly.

Note that the 2002 CGEL is the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL).