The requirements for an IPC (renewal) are in Schedule 6, Appendix 1 of the MOS. Nowhere in schedule 6 is an azimuth (or CDI) approach required. The CDI/azimuth requirements apply to initial issue flight tests - Schedule 5 of the MOS.
Two approaches are required for the IPC - MOS Schedule 6, Appendix 1, para 1.1. They can all be in an approved (including for visual circling and asymmetrics) simulator .
One of these must be a 2D approach, including demonstration of a GNSS holding pattern if the applicant is authorised to fly GNSS approaches.
A 3D approach is not required, but then the applicant is limited as per 61.900.
Unless a simulator approved for visual circling and asymmetric assessments is used, then at least 2 approaches will be required in flight to facilitate the engine failure and circling requirements of the test (engine failure prior to approach and in the missed approach CIR.9 and visual circling CIR.10). This could be an ILS and an RNAV, 2 RNAVs or whatever combination you wish, as long as you do a 2D approach and a GNSS holding pattern as described above.
Some ATOs will allow the candidate to commence a missed approach on 1 engine in simulated IMC, and then remove the hood and allow them to commence circling after some portion of the missed approach. This is inappropriate because the circling is supposed to start from the minima as per the Flight Examiner Handbook. CASA has knocked this practice on the head. ATOs should beware granting an IPC on the basis of only one approach in the air, without a very good explanation of how they assessed both CIR.9 and CIR.10 with only one approach.
Steep turns have not been required since before Part 61, and they are certainly not listed in the MOS now, so i'm not sure why you would be asked to fly a steep turn, unless part of the UA entry/recovery.