The problem with creating a local FAQ is playtesting and disagreements on rulings.
If you start changing minor things, where do you draw the line? Will you change states, points costs, wording?
So you want have an FAQ similat ot how INIT is, but smaller? So picking and choosing rulings?
If you try making your own, its either going to be too small, and wont cover enouph of the issues, too many disagreements due to lack of playtesting, or will eventully get large enouph to be comparable to the INIT faq
The other problem is trying to get people to use them. WIll it be only to games a handful of pople play and become into house rules?
If its used by the Gamesummit or other tournaments, what would people out of town think? They may not share the same ideas.
Look at the discussion on the Ork KFF, Valkirie or other discussions on rules in alot of places. When people make up their minds, they are passionate towards there ideas.
So if this idea goes mainstream, it has the chance of dividing the community.
See, Corey did the really smart thing for the Gamesummit - No Special characters. That basically fixes atleast 90% of the "model" problems. He didn't try changing the balance of armies by making vulkan +10pts, Changing statistics like making weapons Heavy 4, etc.
I dunno. I think your setting yourself up for a ton of work, that may not be used at all.
If your up for making "twinlinked 40k" and make your changes for houserules/games at home, I'd consider playtesting your version of 40k
PS - Please don't take my post as bashing you, etc. This is over the internet, so it looks alot more negative then I want it to sound