Would converting Renown and Repulse have changed British carrier doctrine?

If Renown and Repulse had become carriers and fast Nelson-class capital ships had been built instead, would Royal Navy doctrine have become more focused on a single large air strike?

Probably not: British doctrine was shaped chiefly by the need to keep aircraft operating against land-based threats in the Mediterranean and South China Sea, while the converted ships would also have altered the treaty tonnage available for capital ships.

Courageous, Glorious, and Furious already gave the Royal Navy fast strike carriers, despite their imperfect conversions. Geography mattered more than adding Renown and Repulse: British planners expected carriers to sustain operations under land-based air attack, while American exercises focused more heavily on a decisive fleet battle. Mediterranean and South China Sea planning favored repeated flying operations over one overwhelming strike. Converting Renown and Repulse would also have released capital-ship tonnage and might have made room for a third, perhaps fourth, Nelson-class ship.