Could Alaska fit the pocket-battleship role?

Could the Alaska class qualify as a pocket battleship because of its size and presence?

Its size supports the presence argument, but the design is interpreted here as a continuation of the large armored cruiser, filling a role below the battlecruiser.

Alaska's size and 12-inch guns give it the presence required by the suggested role. Its design is interpreted as a continuation of the armored-cruiser lineage. As battlecruisers grew larger, some duties exceeded a light cruiser's capacity but did not justify assigning a scarce battlecruiser. Existing armored cruisers temporarily filled that gap and would eventually need replacements. Terminology remains disputed, with objections to calling Alaska a large cruiser and concern that labels containing "capital" or "battle" imply a different strategic status. Treaty definitions could place a ship among capital assets even when its practical role and design pointed toward a cruiser.