How extra signatories could break naval treaty negotiations

What was the likeliest way for naval treaty negotiations to implode?

Adding more states and their competing fleet-status claims would make the ratio system unworkably complex.

Adding signatories would introduce more fleet comparisons into negotiations already organized around relative status. Argentina, Chile, and Brazil are imagined demanding three capital ships each, prompting France and Italy to seek a larger allowance above them. Japan would then insist on superiority to France and Italy, while Britain and the United States would want greater totals again. One illustrative calculation reaches twenty British and American capital ships, eight each for France and Italy, and fourteen or fifteen for Japan. Applying the same proportions to carriers would complicate the settlement further. Russia seeking parity with Japan introduces another disputed comparison. These are hypothetical negotiating demands, not historical treaty allocations; a British Treasury demand to spend more on ships is offered humorously as the least likely cause of breakdown.