Very interesting link and a strong case given the Sverdlov numbers/dispositions - I think it does miss that NA39 of course offered a lot more than anti-Sverdlov and so wasnt so much an unconventional response but adding this justification to what you wanted for more core/traditional reasons.A costly destroyer is exactly what this concept was, a destroyer enlarged to take a very powerful, fully automatic, dual purpose main armament that could engage aircraft and enemy cruisers without being as expensive as a contemporary cruiser. The entire concept relied on the very high RoF guns being able to inflict sufficient damage on the target cruiser to render its armament useless before its slow firing guns could find the range and start achieving significant hits on the cruiser-destroyer.But then the whole concept of cruiser-destroyer would just start to fell apart, and they would become a very costly destroyers. Moreover, they would be a very useless costly destroyers, since their anti-surface function was just not applicable; there were no Sverdlov's to hunt in open sea, and in naval combat against Soviet cruiser-destroyer squadrons, the whole concept just wasn't very practical.
This link gives a reasonable view of what the RN thought the Sverdlov class were all about.
For all the technical knowledge - the “so what” is what they planned to do with them, although of course that can change fast once the asset with it’s inherent abilities exists!