Japan's carrier options after the Amagi loss

What might Japan have built after the earthquake destroyed Amagi in a treaty regime with more large carrier conversions?

Japan might have negotiated a purpose-built carrier of 27,000 to 33,000 tons, affecting both prewar capability and later treaty limits.

After the earthquake destroyed Amagi, Japan might have negotiated a replacement of 27,000 or 33,000 tons. Operating Akagi and Kaga before ordering that ship could inform an unusually capable purpose-built fleet carrier. The outcome would depend on how strictly Britain and the United States applied conversion allowances and the 7:7:10 balance. If several navies operated 33,000-ton carriers, that experience could shape the limits discussed at the later London conferences. Britain's own problem combined three roles: an armoured carrier able to survive combat, an Ark Royal-style strike carrier, and Unicorn's distant maintenance and support function. One large carrier might combine those roles with a simpler and cheaper machinery installation than two smaller ships. No documents settle the outcome, so this remains a counterfactual.