Although not wishing to get into a slogging match over your post, I do have a counter perspective;
The Atlantic Council (AC) article paints a VERY narrow US-centric and rather patronising view on where the Brits should park their carrier -that is optimised on US Interests.
Their argument is predicated on the assumption we will blithely continue to play their 'Bridge' role now we have left the EU and that UKPLC should obediently fill the gap created by US Naval over-stretch, in the N Atlantic. It also incorrectly conflates PMBJ's intent of a Global UK, with US need for the UK to be at the heart of NATO. This we can do, without fixing a Carrier in the N Atlantic.
The UK NATO Led 'strike group' can be provided by the JEF (-QE). Although correctly assuming that the UK will remain committed to European NATO defence (as well as bi-lateral stuff; France in Africa), it incorrectly conflates European reluctance to commit to credible defence spending, with that of their the neighbour over the North Sea. The article also makes the mistake of assuming that the UK would obediently offer key national strategic assets as a resource to be 'utili(z)ed most effectively' to meet Washington's strategic interest above that of London's. They also wrongly conflate solidarity (in the face of China) with compliance.
I make these observations, as the presumptions made by the AC run counter to the evidence presented to them (if they did their research). The first clue is in the 'Global' bit of Global Britain, HMG's intent is to work toward a significant pivot back to East of Suez. The work toward CPTPP membership, where significant UK interests already lay and where UK's reputation has suffered less over recent decades. The UK as a leading player in a emerging 'middle power consensus' - where we work more effectively with like minded nations (call it CANZUK +++). For those of us interested in RUSI, IISS et al, these are themes that have been emerging/been discussed openly.
Now that we are a 'independent sovereign nation' - I really don't believe we will revert to some pos-war, pre-Thatcher version of ourselves; under-confident, declinist, and supplicant. We might get it spectacularly wrong, but I don't think it's in our DNA to do so. If Bojo only lasts one term, then all bets are off. But we are starting from a position where we remain a soft-power leader, where we are (now) once again proving that in a global crisis, our science is top tier and where we have a unique opportunity to leverage our reputation in the wider World, in support of those we see as like-minded partners.
Why would we throw that opportunity away, to comply with the national strategic interest of a nation that played us like a fiddle from 1940 onwards? The ME for the QE & PoW will be East, not back-filling the USN in the N Atlantic.
Y