There is never going to be a hold for SRVL if a VL can be performed otherwise. A judgement will be made - SRVLs - if utilised - will not be mandatory; unless needed in an emergency I'll assume. Already it has been made clear by Peter Wilson that the SRVL may not be used operationally (a quote probably about one year ago now). However SRVL has been under longstanding scrutiny as we know, with many years to go before actual testing on a CVF, rather than computer simulation or land based testing.
IF the UK want something better than the KPP requires then that is not relevant to anyone other than the UK. For the moment the VLBB is good to go. These days references are made to a 300lb weight margin for the F-35B - I gather this refers to the VLBB margin. Cool as.
Preparing for take-off: UK ramps up F-35 carrier integration effort 11 Dec 2008 International Defence Review
"...said Rosa. “Also, the ability to ditch weapons and carry out a vertical landing instead of an SRVL in the event of a failure was seen as a powerful safety mitigation.”..."
Military Nuts -> The F-35 JSF/Lightning II thread
_______________________
JSF programme to proceed with UK-specific land-based carrier trials Gareth Jennings 09 Jul 2012
"...With regard the SVRL landing technique, which is designed to increase the aircraft's fuel &/or weapons bring back capacity, Wilson said that the Program Office is continuing the support the UK-specific work in this field, although he added that the UK government has not yet decided if it will adopt this technique on the 2 Queen Elizabeth-class ships (CVF) when they enter service....”
JSF programme to proceed with UK-specific land-based carrier trials - Farnborough 2012 | IHS Jane's
_____________________________
Minor cracks found in part of F-35 B-model fighter plane 10 Oct 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"...the B-model had 300 pounds (136 kg) of extra weight margin...."
Minor cracks found in part of F-35 B-model fighter plane | Reuters