The series would be first a light source (the sun or other source), then a separating and isolation of the a narrow band of frequencies (the strawberry absorbing most of the frequencies and reflecting a narrow band), this narrow band of frequencies striking a photoreceptor (the cones), the photoreceptor being triggered and sending a bioelectric signal to the optic nerve, a chain of nerves in the optic nerve firing when excited by that signal and exciting the next nerve in the chain, that signal firing specific neurons in the brain, the mind interpreting that firing as color. There is no color at any step along the process, only after a completion of all steps when the mind experiences the result is there color. A break anywhere along this series and there is no color.
I would go along with that.
And also, as you probably already appreciate, there is another very important part of the process. To some extent we see (ie in the OP model, our brain creates) the particular colours our brain expects/predicts, not the colours that would (without the expectations) result from the processes you just described. This is one offered explanation for why the 'brown square' on the 'near, vertical face' of the colour cube illusion is created as orange in our heads. The brain seems to have learned certain things and they are, it seems, brought into play during brain processing. These include factoring in what appear to be shadows, and also shapes (that a banana shape is usually associated with yellow will slightly bias us to see it as yellow in different light conditions, and also when the banana goes through stages of ripeness, from appearing green through appearing dark brown, in an interesting phenomenon called colour constancy, and sometimes specifically related to what is known as the Land Effect, named after Edwin H. Land).
It seems to be the case that many parts of the brain are involved in colour, including parts that are associated with learning, shape recognition, memory and prediction.
And just while we're on strawberries, there are apparently no (what are conventionally called) red pixels in either of the images below:
Note: the processes by which the 'strawberries' on the left (an experimental image made by psychologist Matt Lieberman) result in red in our brain, and by which the 'strawberries' on the right (in an image by psychologist Akiyoshi Kitaoka) do similar to a lesser extent, and by which the colours in the colour 'cube' are brown & orange, may not be identical processes and I think it's fair to say that no one knows for sure what the processes are or why the visual results occur. But the bottom line is that the brain is not like a passive camera, that it is actively creative and predictive, and that colour does not result only from inputs in a particular situation. It's at least a two-way, interactive process, and probably much more complicated than that.
And as you say, the input, in a particular situation, doesn't have to involve or include light at all. Though that is not conclusive, I don't think, because it could be that the neuronal processes
have evolved to represent actual, external colour, but can
also be stimulated to do similar in a number of other ways too. But I would still suggest that the brain not needing light to create colour is more like evidence that points towards the OP model rather than away from it.