What interwar conversions taught about carrier size

Would a mix of Eagle-, Admiral-, and Courageous-style conversions have clarified the future form of aircraft carriers?

Both navies already understood the main tradeoffs; American Pacific needs favored larger air groups, while British geography placed greater value on survivability and having a carrier remain available.

The United States needed mass air strikes across the Pacific, while British carriers often operated at the end of long logistics chains or under concentrated Mediterranean air attack. Losing Britain's only available carrier in a theater could remove the capability entirely, so survivability could matter more than maximizing one deck's air group. Both navies understood the broad future of carrier warfare, but treaty constraints and operational geography led them to different compromises. Once those limits eased, the Midway and Malta concepts showed that both services preferred larger carriers combining bigger air groups with substantial protection.