Could a smaller carrier have survived the 1966 review?

Could a smaller carrier design or a firmer NATO justification have made cancellation less likely in 1966?

Probably not. The government was determined to meet a financial target, so changing the carrier design or strategic wording was unlikely to overcome the demand for savings.

The answer is no: the government was seeking a large saving and had already fixed the financial target. Even the claimed annual carrier cost does not align neatly with the savings attributed to the review, because the existing carriers would continue operating into the 1970s. The polished strategic language is treated as expert work applied to a decision driven primarily by money. A smaller design or stronger NATO rationale would not have removed the government's underlying incentive to cancel the programme.