@alexidoia - You can of course work with Cinelog in a proxy workflow as you are describing but doing so will not offer any real benefits in terms of final quality and grade capability. Proxy workflows actually complicate things and increase both the amount of time required to achieve a new primary grade and add significant load to your CPUs/GPUs that could otherwise be used for additional nodes, plugins etc plus there is more scope for things to break.
Using Cinelog in a digital intermediate (DI) workflow splits the initial heavy-load process of debayering plus white balance and exposure fine tuning, from the later grading part and, if you export Cinelog-C as ProRes 444 or XQ, you will have the benefit of NLE-friendly smaller files that can be graded just as much as the raw images plus a very high quality log master for archiving - you can even revert Cinelog-C encoded video to a scene linear debayered image for VFX etc without any significant loss.
If you think about hi-end cinema cameras with built-in log profiles such as Slog, Log-C, Canon log etc, they all use the same process described above in the camera itself BUT you must always set exposure and white balance correctly before hitting record. Fixing an incorrect, baked-in white balance is somewhat limited by the codec and can be difficult. With raw recording you are simply deferring a lot of things to post where you usually have more time, freedom and finer controls but debayering, white balance and exposure tweaks are still required - debayering images eats CPU/GPU cycles.
