Let me first sum up what the nuclear option is, as far as I understand it : a cloture vote happens, carrying more than half of the votes but less than the required supermajority. Pursuant to the written rules of the Senate, the chair announces that the cloture vote fails. A senator makes a point of order invoking a rationale not written in the senate rules. The chair rules against that point of order. An appeal is made on that ruling, and is ruled on by a majority of the senators (potentially with the VP tie-break). The ruling is overturned and the cloture is invoked.
It makes sense that the "thing" on which cloture gets invoked (let's say the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court for example) does get the cloture, as the Senate as a whole ruled that way. But how and why would the rationale invoked by the Senator raising the point of order (here, that SCOTUS nominations' clotures are by simple majority vote) be kept for future rulings, as it contradicts the written rules of the Senate ? Why is that rationale considered a more important precedent than the rules ? Do the written rules say that an overruling of the chair does such precedent ?
Further question, assuming such thing is not part of the written rules. What would happen if a future chair (let's say the president pro tem, with the VP not present but agreeing with them) decides to only uphold the written rules of the Senate, accepting individual challenges of the ruling of the chair but rejecting the idea that such challenges create precedents ? What would they violate, apart from the opinion of the parliamentarian ?
NB : it may seem that this is a partly theoretical question, in part due to the very partisan nature of senate chairing and rules enforcing. However, there are a lot of people, among which the senators themselves, who recognize these precedents as real existing things. In particular, there have been a lot of judicial nominations since Reid's nuclear option and several SCOTUS nominations since McConnell's, and in all cases the chair applied the precedent as created (apparently) by the nuclear option. Instead of requiring individual overrulings of the chair for individual nominations, for example.