I think you may well prove right about the missed opportunities by NASA's cursory 'mission-threat' analysis of the debris strike. Your check-list warrants serious consideration for future missions, although I am not sure if they had enough fuel in the OMS tanks to get them to an ISS rendevous. But it would sure beat the alternative as we unfortunately witnessed.
This is all second-guessing, but they should also look at having a reasonable capability for their own self-inspection of the underside of the shuttle. A simple remotely-controlled little camera could be deployed by the astronauts to allow them to check things out. And they may want to routinely carry along an EVA suit with the appropriate mobility rocket pack to go around themselves for repairs, if warranted. And, yeah, they may need to come up with a quickee-repair patch solution. Maybe squirt some ablasive goo on the damaged area. Of course, we don't at this point know the actual cause of the breakup, but if it was the launch debris, we also don't know what the precise damage and failure mode was. It may have been something beside the tiles. Maybe the wheel-well panel was dislodged, and high-temp blow-by did the deed. We may never know for sure...but lets hope that we can make these craft safe enough to rely on.
Meanwhile, I would strongly urge the Administration to seriously push for some alternative space-lift tech. We must not be limited to one vehicle design. I believe we should develop a new unmanned Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, utilizing the SRBs from the shuttle. They are awesome. And we should take full advantage of the X-33 program tech and develop an Single Stage to Orbit manned launcher, that is routinely launched (as was the X-15, etc) from a 'carrier' plane.
There are some questions posted there about the insulating "foam", also how long a crew could stay on the space station awaiting pick-up -- could those who are more knowledgeable check that thread out and answer the questions ??