Based on my reading of the attached PHD theses, the Royal Navy placed a lot of value in first class cruisers for trade protection and scouting, in the period he covers 1884-1909. At times the cruisers seemed to take the leading role in RN doctrine. The author of this piece argues that Fisher was creating a cruiser navy with Invincible and Dreadnought. The bigger First Class cruisers were sometimes called battle cruisers in the literature of the day, meaning they were considered to be capital ships.
Armoured cruisers could stand in the battle line in the era when quick firing secondary armament at medium to close range was thought to be the deciding factor in an engagement, in the era before useful long range fire control. Battleships and first class cruisers had the same amount of secondary armament, and could wreck each others upperworks equally well. After a ship had been mission killed that way, the battle would be finished by sinking the hulk with close range torpedoes.
Japan used first class cruisers effectively in the battle line against China and Russia. So the doctrine was sound, for its day.
First Class Cruisers were faster, so they had more strategic mobility than battleships. They were also cheaper than battleships, but not by much, and used fewer crew, but also not by much.
Jump forward to 1916, and Armoured Cruisers are totally incapable of surviving exposure to modern capital ships. But some of them are still as new as the Battle Cruisers and Dreadnoughts. There might have been a doctrinal blind spot created by the newer ACs being a step on the officer career path, and a reluctance to send the best and brightest off to rot in the tropics in their old ships that actually had no use with the fleet.
I guess ACs would have some value as a screen against light forces, acting with the fleet, but my sense of a best alternate use for them is to send more out to trade protection across the wide globe. If even a dozen ACs had been parked in strategic ports across the Empire, they might have averted some of the early war raids by Emden and Königsberg. Britain used Armed Merchant Cruisers for the trade protection role a lot. But Armoured Cruisers were generally faster, as well as being better armed. An Armoured Cruiser could always sink a light cruiser that chose to fight.
It also made no sense to hoard the best of the ACs around the home islands, when much more obsolete ACs were being sent the chase raiders. If Craddock, or Arbuthnot, had the 1st Cruiser Squadron at the Battle of Colonel, then Von Spee would have been sunk right there, and it would not have been necessary to detach the Invincible and Inflexible to chase him.
There were still roles for the ships, and I can’t see a scenario where they would not be used in WW1.
https://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprin...First-class_cruiser_development_1884-1909.pdf