[pepe]

Ok, let's check your source:

https://fas.org/nuke/guide/nep5text.htm

The Soviet Navy deploys seven different types of nuclear-
capable sea-launched cruise and anti-ship missiles: the SS-N-3
Shaddock/Sepal, the SS-N-7 Starbright, the SS-N-9 Siren, the SS-
N-12 Sandbox, the SS-N-19 Shipwreck, the SS-N-21 Sampson, and the
SS-N-22 Sunburn. With the exception of the SS-N-21, all of these
SLCMs are thought to be dual-capable, i.e., they can carry either
a conventional or nuclear warhead.

It doesn't means all missiles were with nuclear warheads. it only means it was possible to use conventional or nuke warheads.

It is estimated that some 30 submarines (four Akula, two Sierra, 23 Victor III, and one Yankee Notch) are capable of delivering the SS-N-21.

It's still doesn't prove SS-N-21 carried by these submarines were nukes. It only means these submarines can carry this missile - nothing less, nothing more.

The SS-N-21 despite being declared operational in late 1987,
may still not be widely deployed. In March 1990, the U.S. Navy
described the "recent completion of a two year improvement
program for the SS-N-21 land attack cruise missile, which
probably focused on improving the SLCM's guidance/propulsion
systems." The missile is thought to be in full scale
production.

It means in 1990 Sampson missile was still under developement - and i remind you about INF Treaty from 1987. It's 3 years after Soviet Union declared not to use nukes on this kind/range missiles!

Btw i didn't answer you in previous post, because you add link and fragments of text after my post.

I cited a source where it was indicated that the equipped warhead was nuclear

Where exactly is it confirmed? You only showed sources confirmed 2 versions and list of submarines carreied this missiles - but without any single information about version of warhead.

Also you wrote (but you edited this) Sierra was first before Akula - which is correct - but it was ONLY 3 months! And of course if you wish to launch Sampson LAM from older sub, you can take Victor III.

existence HE-version is indicated only in the Western press and is doubtful

I't not only in West press confirmed but also in East press. You didn't proved this submarine missiles were nuclear. You only proved Sampson missiles were on some submarines - nothing more.

Also you showed it were only two Sierras. Its little strange because it means only Sierra II (Nizhniy Novgorod, Pskov) or Sierra I (Carp, Kostroma) were equiped with Sampsons. In my opinion it were Sierra II.

The topic is complex and practically unprovable because of its high secrecy

No, it's problematic only bacause you make wrong conclusions from sources.

edit:

Let me explain why you are wrong. From the same source i take part about USN nuclear capable warships:

Table 7: U.S. Nuclear-Capable Warships and Submarines (June 1990)

Type Number Nuclear Weapons

Ballistic Missile 33 Poseidon, Trident I,
Submarines Trident II

Attack Submarines 50 Tomahawk SLCMs

Aircraft Carriers 12 Bombs and Depth Bombs

Battleships 4 Tomahawk SLCMs

Cruisers 16 Tomahawk SLCMs

Destroyers 16 Tomahawk SLCMs

As you see on some warships nuclear capable weapon is Tomahawk.
But it doesn't means all tomahawks were with nuke warheads. It means these platforms were capable to use nuclear versions.
Also it doesn't means every SSN, Battleships or Cruisers had nuclear warheads onboard.

Is it clean?