Jutland, anti-flash protection, and Lexington's light armour

Did the US Navy accept the Lexington class's light armour because it blamed British battlecruiser losses at Jutland on poor anti-flash protection?

Yes; that was the US Navy's conclusion, so it did not treat the British losses as a decisive argument against Lexington's protection scheme.

American designers attributed the British battlecruiser losses at Jutland to inadequate anti-flash safeguards in turrets and barbettes. They did not treat the losses as proof that a fast capital ship needed much heavier armour. That interpretation made the Lexington class's protection tradeoff appear more acceptable. A navy's reading of one battle can shape the risks it accepts in the next design.