Could different Washington Treaty ratios have delayed war?

Could a Washington settlement with more capital ships, a more favorable ratio for Japan, and a larger displacement limit have produced a more stable naval order?

It might have delayed conflict by easing Japanese resentment, while a roughly 40,000-ton limit would have been more practical, but it would not guarantee lasting peace.

The proposal increases capital-ship allowances and gives Japan fourteen ships, matching the seven-to-ten ratio Japanese negotiators wanted more closely. This arrangement might have prolonged peace by reducing one source of grievance, though it would not necessarily remove the causes of a later war. A broader scrapping allowance could also have let Britain discard more of its older 12-inch and 13.5-inch capital ships instead of preserving a paper total with uneven military value. A 40,000-ton capital-ship limit also matched the displacement navies were already finding practical better than the 35,000-ton figure.