Much as I want to explore this what if under the parameters we agreed upon, I have to unfortunately point out a weakness in the points you raised about constantly using Japanese carriers.
Consider the carriers' air crew. Let's say that the Japanese carriers do lord it over the Pacific without any opposing US carrier. The Japanese defeat US attempts with carrier airpower, as you envision. But the Japanese would still have suffer losses. Planes will be shot down and experienced air crew lost. Even if the Japanese constantly win air battles, their naval aviation crews will still suffer losses and it's a fact that the Japanese system wasn't designed to provide a quick turnover of newly trained air crew and pilots.
So for the short term, Japan might be able to hold but attrition is still against them, even without losing any carriers!
Another point to consider: The Japanese naval mind generally thought in terms of seeking battle with major fleet units in order to deal one smashing blow to an enemy. It would be a highly incompetent US naval commander who would fight on Japanese terms, especially if the Japanese held an advantage. The logical and prudent thing to do would be for the US to strike in places where the Japanese fleet is absent or few until the US marshals enough strength to dictate the terms of the fight. This historically happened. If the Japanese decides to spread out its fleet and forces to defend their entire buffer zone, they would probably lose. Look again at how history unfolds: generally, those who defend everything, ends up defending nothing.
The best that the Japanese could hope for is to delay the US as long as it could. The Japanese might attempt to shore up their defensive dike but the US flood is growing higher and higher. Eventually, the Japanese dike will get swamped.