I am in awe of the wealth of knowledge, experience and expertise in this debate of the merits and de-merits of conventional fighter operation and STOVL operation. To try to reach a conclusion I think we need to distil what we’ve learned such that an idiot can understand it. As my wife never tires of telling me I'm an idiot, I think I am perfectly suited to the task.
In a nutshell, it seems that hurtling along a length of runway or deck to overcome gravity, or a controlled crash along the same deck or runway to permit gravity to hold sway again, gives your aeroplane some significant additional fighting advantages.
If you can go straight up or straight down, you achieve some ease of operation and have less space requirements. The price you pay is a host of additional engineering challenges, and significant fighting disadvantages.
So, if you could do STOVL without the fighting and engineering disadvantages, why would you do it any other way? Well, it’s a no-brainer, you wouldn’t do it any other way. But you can’t (yet). So logically you would choose this route when you are hampered by constraints that mean that you accept the fighting limitations and engineering challenges in exchange for achieving a fighting capability you would not otherwise have. Thus STOVL is very understandable for Italy (Cavour is STOVL or nothing) or US Wasp class, or Spain or Thailand.
The overall objective is to deliver the best fighting capability you can. A carrier is more than this, but that’s it’s raison d’etre. As the QE class is big enough to permit operation of the aircraft with significant fighting advantages, it’s logical to wield the biggest stick. You have to accept some additional operational difficulties, associated with launch at the start and the controlled crash at the end. (Damn and blast Sir Issac, things would have been so much easier if he hadn’t invented g.)
I deduce therefore, that F35C and CATOBAR is the way the UK should go to achieve the primary objective: the best military advantage.
Now, intervening constraints may interfere with this choice. These constraints are basically called politicians, or money, or a combination of both. Money will determine if the fighters make it into service at all and the politicians whether we can afford them if they do. If they decide for political or financial reasons we will not have the biggest stick, then we must accept that we will have a fighting capability: F35B.
So, in considering the F35 carrier options, I conclude F35C is the best choice. F35B the next choice. Providing they both meet their performance parameters, either is acceptable and will be a step-change of the UK's maritime capabilities.