That still makes no sense. You are saying Adam's will was corrupt before he actually acted upon the temptation and partook of the fruit by action. Sounds like "the devil made me do it, but I wanted to"
Adam was corrupt, therefore, his desire was to be as God. That was also the condemnation of the Devil.
Your hang up is that you don't recognize an inordinate desire as an evil itself, as if Adam could wish to do evil, but is blameless and pure as long as one doesn't act on it. You call the desire itself temptation. It's interesting that when Christ was tempted of the Devil, it is not written that Christ lusted after food. It is written that He hungered. There is a difference between hunger and a lust for food, to feel the deep need for nourishment, and an inordinate desire for the pleasures that accompany eating.
But I digress.
You define freedom as the right or power to do good or evil. Will anyone say God is not free? Will any say God is not all powerful? (Some noncalvinists assert as much with the notion of open theism, but I mean will any rational individual say that God is not all powerful?)
And yet, God cannot lie. It is impossible. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.
But how could Christ be tempted as we are, you might ask. Your lusts are not the temptations. And to understand a real temptation, you would need to know the temptation to steal bread if you've gone without eating for nearly six weeks, or to deny Christ when the lives of your children hang in the balance.
So, stop thinking about the capacity to do evil as something that defines free will. It doesn't. There is no free will. One is free when his desire is to do only good, and he is given the power to do so.