See my comments on your interpretations below:
a. action item review - yes
b. internal could be something like a major equipment failure, external could be getting a specialized contract we need additional training for (I think the interpretation of this one could use more explaining) - this should go back to your internal and external issues identified in section 4.1
c. does anything need to specifically noted here - or move along to 1-8? - this should include review of the effectiveness of each of your key business processes based on performance measures for each process (i.e. meeting targets or not)
1. Survey results, customer complaints, corrective actions and feedback from those we defined as interested parties - in our case, customers, suppliers and employees. - yes
2. reporting of our objectives and are they met, if not what are we doing about it - yes
3. WIP, test and final reporting, high/low defect code, failure rate, etc. - ok
4. we generally put a summary of customer rejections here; if we see a trend of specific rejections, the time it takes to close the rejection - how many opened vs. closed - does this tie to your corrective action system, i.e. is each customer rejection considered a corrective action? Do you have corrective actions other than customer rejects?
5. Tool and calibration - this section is more meant to be about monitoring and measurement of your business process performance (see comment above for part c)
6. Customer, supplier, registrar audits - this should also include internal audits
7. supplier review - yes
8. not sure here - our OTD is an objective which is covered at #3 - ok as long as it's covered somewhere
d. discussion on if we need to hire new people, need new tools - ok
e. since this is new, I assume we can review identified risks, we have a risk log, so if I refer to this log, and the actions take, will this be enough? - you should be tracking whether the actions have reduced the risk level, i.e. your risk log shows a particular risk to be "High", then after the action is taken, it is reassessed as "Med", then it would be considered effective at reducing the risk
f. could use an explanation here - this would be any identified opportunities for improvement from any source, i.e. internal/external audits, suggestions made by any of the business process owners to improve their processes, etc. During the MR, the team reviews these suggestions and identifies any actions that will be taken as a result of those opportunities (9.3.3.a)
A few other thoughts: para. 9.3.1 states "Top management shall review the organization's QMS, at planned intervals, to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy, effectiveness, and alignment with the strategic direction of the organization."
Although the "alignment with the strategic direction" isn't listed as a specific input in section 9.3.2, this may be what your auditor was referring to with regards to considering a review of the strategic plan. I think your procedure leaves it a little unclear as to what you are reviewing the strategic plan for, i.e. it doesn't state that you are reviewing it for alignment between your QMS and the strategic direction of the organization.
As far as the quality policy goes, section 5.1.1.b requires leadership to ensure that the quality policy and quality objectives are established and are compatible with the context and strategic direction of the organization. I didn't see anything to this effect in the excerpt from your procedure.
In general, I suggest people to keep their wording and format for MR inputs and outputs to stay as close as possible to the standard (of course adding in your own organization's interpretations of how it applies to you).
Let me know if you still have questions.