A community wind-coop desk can meet its FAQ quality bar with a compact model already approved in-region. A newer flagship is flashier and several times more energy-hungry per page. Which choice is the responsible one?

A community wind-coop FAQ that a compact, already-approved in-region model already satisfies should stay on that model when a flashier flagship multiplies energy per page without a needed quality gain. Responsible selection balances fitness-for-purpose, regional compliance, cost, and sustainability: if the compact model clears the FAQ bar, switching to a hungrier flagship is an unjustified upgrade. Keeping the in-region compact choice also preserves data-residency and approval boundaries the coop already cleared. The choice to take the newest flagship because unused capacity is harmless fails because novelty is not a responsible-AI metric; if the smaller model meets requirements, the flagship's energy premium has no justifying benefit. The choice to pick the flagship because newest and largest is automatically responsible fails the same proportionality test—responsibility includes choosing adequate, not maximal, capacity. The choice to ignore fitness-for-purpose and score only by how new the nickname sounds fails because marketing labels do not measure answer quality, safety, or regional approval status for member FAQs. Exam caveat: if regulators or members later expand the desk to complex interconnection or safety-critical guidance, re-evaluate; sustainability wins only while the compact model remains adequate and in-policy. Operational check: freeze a FAQ regression set covering billing, outage, and membership questions; compare compact versus flagship on accuracy, refusal behavior, latency, and estimated energy per page; document that the compact model meets thresholds before locking it as the default for the wind-coop desk.