Didn't Pearl Harbor undermine Japan's attrition plan?

Didn't attacking Pearl Harbor force the US fleet to remain in port and undermine Japan's plan to wear it down during an advance?

Yes. The strike created the anger Japan wanted but removed the intact battle fleet that could have made the rash advance its attrition doctrine required.

A viewer identifies the core contradiction before its detailed treatment later in the lecture. American admirals were unlikely to continue a suicidal advance once losses mounted, yet political anger might have forced an early offensive if a viable battle fleet remained. Pearl Harbor created the emotional pressure while removing much of the force that could act on it. The United States therefore had to repair, rebuild, and adopt a more deliberate campaign instead of immediately charging west. The raid achieved spectacular damage while frustrating the movement that Japan's interception-and-attrition strategy required.