A CAMO 1 uses the 90-day advance to perform an airworthiness review or uses the 30-day advance for an extension

No, you couldn't. 

The purpose of paragraph M.A.901(b)(1) is to define a part of the concept “controlled environment”, stating that the aircraft must be managed over the last 12 months by a single CAMO or CAO with regard to the validity of an ARC. 

In the case described, although the “CA(M)O 2” may have been managing the airworthiness of the aircraft for a period of more than 12 months, such as the CA(M)O that issued the ARC or the previous extension, the aircraft shall be deemed to have been managed by more than one CAMO or CAO since the date of issuance of the last ARC or the last extension, implying that the condition “controlled environment” is not met. 

This is to prevent the transfer of the aircraft within the 90-day advance period (ARC) or 30 days (extensions) with the intention of avoiding the completion of a complete airworthiness review at the time of expiry of the airworthiness review certificate. 
 
This does not apply to Part ML aircraft, as referred to in paragraph (c) of point ML.A.901, the CA(M)O may extend the ARC regardless of who issued the original ARC.