The wording says contracting powers may use two otherwise-scrapped ships for 33,000-ton carrier conversions. Because the clause says may rather than must, it can be read as permitting two large carriers built from scratch. Other signatories would probably have challenged an attempt to exploit that interpretation. The ambiguity exposes a wider weakness: in 1922 the treaty ultimately relied on the threat of war, even though few governments were likely to fight over a carrier clause.
Notable Point · 35:20-36:05
A carrier-conversion loophole and the treaty's enforcement gap
The treaty's use of permissive conversion language suggests a possible new-build loophole whose practical restraint depended on political pressure rather than automatic enforcement.