Avoidable carrier losses and Force Z's missing hulls

Were the Royal Navy's early carrier losses inevitable, and could uninterrupted construction have changed Force Z?

The losses reflected avoidable doctrine and command choices, while additional construction could plausibly have given Force Z one or two carriers and forced a larger Japanese response.

The loss of three Royal Navy carriers was not an unavoidable cost of war. Ark Royal's damage-control response, Courageous's use as a submarine hunter, and Glorious's unescorted movement without an air patrol each involved choices that could have been made differently. Even if some losses still occurred, uninterrupted construction would have left more hulls available to absorb them. That larger inventory could plausibly place an armoured carrier alongside an older or larger carrier with Force Z. A combined air group of roughly 60 and 72 aircraft would create a serious reconnaissance, strike, and defensive force. Japan would then have to divert substantial fleet strength southward or revise the Singapore operation rather than attack two unsupported capital ships.