Your release date is always later than the actual revision date (or the same date). You can not release a document until the revision is complete.
Do you have a written document control procedure? Does your document control procedure say that you do it this way?
The issue is that there are many, many ways a company can design a document control system. For example, you can have departmental, decentralized control, or you can have centralized document control, or you can have a hybrid system. A hybrid system is the most common.
What you have written here describes your system to some degree. You have a revision history (when the actual document was revised) and you have a release (effective) date. No big deal. The auditor asked questions, but apparently didn't give a nonconformance. The more complex your system, the more questions you can expect. As long as you can explain how your system works verbally or with a procedure, I don't see the problem. It is as simple as writing a procedure that describes how your system works.
The system described in the flow chart above is a very simple system in which the only date is the release date which is thee important date - The date it goes into effect. The date the document was actually revised, but not released, isn't important. In part that is because it is typical for a document to be revised in several iterations over more than one day, rather than on one specific day/date.
It is difficult to say which way was is 'best', and every company is different. Different management structure, different size, etc. Take Motorola - Many different facilities and different locations, but ultimately there is corporate, so document control practices typically have to address different requirements. No way to make a simple document control procedure.