I may KNOW less than you, but consider that the ring oscillator is a (not THE) clocking mechanism for the CPU. They pretty much have to work in concert to work at all.

Using your analogy:

"So if I am feeding fuel into an engine at the rate of  100 cc per minute and the engine is turning at 1000 revolutions per minute then if I drop the fuel feed to 50 cc per minute and the engine revolves at > 500 rpm then in Ward's terms they are not varying together since only the direction has changed but the change is not proportional."

Actually, they are moving in proportion.  You're only checking two points on the tach. At any two points on the tach, a change will be observed, and virtually always in the same direction, and in proportion.  The carb and crank are two components that work in concert.  But they (specifically the induction) are influence by multiple factors.  Heat (what happens to the fuel mixture at wide variations in temp, or alltitude altering the mixture?), burden (floor it under heavy load, will it instantly rev to expected rpm?), "outside" influences (length of runners on the intake, e.g., taking a fast corner using a tunnel ram - the engine will bog).  But always, ultimately, the engine will rev proportionally consistent with the induction of fuel.  And, in either your analogy or the issue really at hand, there will always be a second/nanosecond where the exact consistency (that the defendants argued) will not exist, because one component is reacting to input from the other component.

The defense, as I understand it, suggested that the components had to act in absolute consistency. So how would the operating speed be able to change? It couldn't.  But our argument suggests that change is possible (and, in practicality, it is), and that when that change occurs the two components will tend to change operation in the same "direction", but proportionally due to a multitude of influencing factors

Hopefully this clarifies.

And I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE