Unless your desire is to make it 'scale' for that reason alone, there is never a good reason IMO to mimic a full size airfoil simply because your model is likely operating at a significantly different Reynolds number. So right from the getgo, the polars which were *presumably* optimized for the full size aircraft will not be translated to your model & you may be passing up many significantly better airfoils optimized at the model's scale.

Anyway, just for discussion purposes, here is how the Cl/Cd polars look between the 2 airfoils you are curious about, the (semi-sym) naca 23012 & (sym) 0012. I chose a token Re, Im not sure how relevent it is without doing the math. The first thing that stands out is the non-symetery of the Cl/Cd profile at pos/neg AOA. I assume there is a logical reason the full size designer chose this feature which yields an extended Cl profile at positive AOA vs negative. Usually you would prefer this airfoil type on something like that spends more of its life making inside G-turns like a pylon model or HP glider. A classic aerobatic/pattern model should ideally have identical charactersitics (or as close as possible) in upright & inverted (as shown by the naca 0012). Otherwise you have differnt control inputs & a very differnt feel = extra pilot work. Is there some biplane inter-wing effect they are taking into account? I dunno, Im pretty much aerobatic biplane illeterate. Maybe someone more qualified can answer. The second observation is the 23012 has some humps & bumps in the profile vs something noticeably smoother in the 0012. There could be reasons for this relating to the vintage of coordinates, but all things being equal, bumps are less desirable than smooth, again from a pilot control stanpoint when traversing this range in normal aerobatics. I didnt look at pitching moment, but its generally accepted that sym airfoils operating at low AOA have lower pitch coefficients vs semi-sym. That means less tailplane work & variation through changing AOA, ie again sym is better IMO.

In (mono-wing) F3A models I designed, I think the classic 10% naca airfoils were pretty good, or at least a close starting point in the 2m span, 10-poundish range. Area & planform shape can often overide airfoil selection if you go too far off the ideal. The naca A series were a bit easier to build with minimal compromise in perfrmance, but these days you can cnc hotwire foam to look like anything so who cares. Certain (similar) Eppler foils are also good choices too IMO.

If this were my project, I would database as many succesful TOC/IMAC 'RC' bipes as I could get my hands on. This would be a much more meaningful & 'contest proven' approach simply because these are flown by the best aerobatic pilots in the world. Bad designs just dont survive organic evolution & it should be no surprise they start to look similar after a decade or so. Im guessing you will find something like naca0010 (sym) airfoils, maybe even thinner max thicknesses.

Good luck, love the cad rendering!