This feels like it could be a undergrad/grad-school quantum mechanics course level problem, or potentially something pretty interesting. I'd be happy with either answer, but I don't know which one is true.
Consider spin-1/2 quantum spins, and let us denote the Pauli operators as $X_i$, $Y_i$, and $Z_i$ etc. for the $i$-th spin. We have $N$ spins in total, and let's say we can group them into $n$ groups of $k$ spins, i.e. $kn=N$.
If we redefine $\tilde{X}_i := \sum_{j\in i\mathrm{-th~group}}^k X_i$ etc. by summing up those $k$ spins, and then defining a Hamiltonian only using those "coarse grained" terms, we can obtain a Hamiltonian that looks as if the elementary quantum degree of freedom with spin-$k/2$.
For example, something like this: \begin{equation} \tilde{H}=\sum_{i,j\leq n} w_{ij} \left(\tilde{X}_i \tilde{X}_j + \tilde{Y}_i \tilde{Y}_j\right) = \sum_{i,j\leq n} w_{ij} \left(\left(\sum^kX_i\right)\left(\sum^kX_j\right) + \left(\sum^kY_i\right)\left(\sum^kY_j\right)\right). \end{equation} The right hand side is only there to show the definition, and the sum is taken over the coarse-graining "group".
In this case, the coarse-grained operators $\tilde{X}_i$ etc. all satisfy the spin-$k/2$ angular momentum commutation relations; e.g. \begin{equation} [\tilde{X}_j,\tilde{Y}_j]=2i\tilde{Z}_j . \end{equation} Therefore, algebraically the Hamiltonian $\tilde H$ is the same as the Hamiltonian with $n$ spin-$k/2$s as elementary degrees of freedom, which we can call $H_{J=k/2}$ for now.
Now, the ground state $|\mathrm{GS}\rangle$ of Hamiltonian $\tilde H$ always seem to have the "coarse-grained spin" to be maximal, i.e. if you define $\tilde S_i^2 := \tilde X_i^2 + \tilde Y_i^2 +\tilde Z_i^2$, then $\langle\mathrm{GS}|\tilde S_i^2|\mathrm{GS}\rangle = k(k+2)$ for all $i=1,2,\ldots,n$. For me, this seems very natural because this simply matches up with the ground state of $H_{J=k/2}$, but I can't find a rigorous proof for this. Another thing is that for general eigenstates of $\tilde H$, this is not always true, so it seems like you would have to use the fact that you are only interested in the ground state somehow, which makes it harder to prove I think.
Does anyone know a good reference for this? It feels like maybe it's something to do with group representations of spins etc, but I'm not sure. I'd also very much welcome a proof if someone can provide that.