From what I gather, the semantics of frame size can be inconsistent across builders, and there's an additional dichotomy between old school geometries and modern compact / slanted top tube ones.
As a case in point, i'm riding a 60cm vintage steel frame (57cm top tube), and a nominally 56cm (size 'large') carbon comfort frame (57cm effective top tube). It seems that top tube / effective top tube is the most critical dimension, and that the traditional seat tube length metric, which gives rise to nominal frame size, is rather secondary.
Before you go for a full blown fitting, you may want to just demo a bunch of bikes at a good shop, and/or see if they can swap some longer and perhaps differently angled stems onto your bike. Useful data points, even if you turn right around and proceed with the pro fitting.
Other than nominal frame size, keep track of effective top tube length, stem length, and whether the seat post is straight or setback, and how far back the saddle is pushed on the rails. Best to not be maxed out in that regard.
If you can ride the smaller frame comfortably, it is perhaps not a bad thing - stiffness, weight, more seat post showing for better vibration absorption, etc. If not already fitted, perhaps a nice setback carbon post and a longer stem (and 25mm or larger tires) is all it would require to get you more stretched out and otherwise more comfortable?
Just a few very amateur musings...