DM, I will try to make myself clear. If I want a house built, I will choose an architect who will listen to what I want, possibly amend or adjust a few things for the sake of cost, style or expedience and then produce the drawings. Then I will choose a builder who will build said residence for x pounds.
Having agreed the price the building is built to my satisfaction within the required timescale or penalties are invoked.
With AW, they are the only architect and the only builder in town so I have a choice of 1 with no competition. Then AW will look at my ideas for a house and then try to shoehorn a design they already have drawn up for a different project and try to convince me that this house of theirs is exactly what I want.
Since they are the only architects/builders in town I have little choice because I want my new house next year so I emphasise what I want and they promise that what they will deliver will be to my liking and a contract is made.
Somewhere along the line, AW realise that the bathroom design I have specified (and they have agreed to) is not going to work because their plumbing doesn't fit it. Then they tell me it will be OK because they have a very similar bathroom suite which does fit their plumbing but hasn't got the bidet, power shower and walk-in bath I asked for.
I create merry hell and ask why they said they could do the job when it was obvious from the start there was a plumbing issue. They reply by telling me I
can have what I originally wanted but it will mean redesigning their plumbing rig which will take time and cost more money because it wasn't included in the original quote.
Because I am under pressure from the wife to move into the new house I have to agree and the end result is a house with a bathroom I don't like and didn't want and AW go away happy, with their profit intact and promising that an upgrade to the bathroom may well be available in a couple of years as long as I am willing to pay for it.
I think that sums up the AW experience
Back to governors - unless your 2 engines are mechanically or electrically joined, you need a droop law to allow the engines to load share. In a constant Nr (I think this is what you mean by isynchronous) system with no link between engines, one engine could idle and the other be flat out and both governors would be happy because the Nr was correct.
Back to manoeuvring the Lynx - because of the CAC (computer acceleration control) when 'G' is sensed, it offloads the rotor head by reducing collective pitch (and thus torque) - it is a clumsy system designed to minimse the effect of a cyclic AFCS runaway in pitch.
If you are in a high-speed tactical descent with say 20% Tq (ie power on) and you then flare hard, the 'G' will cause the CAC to reduce pitch and Tq and coupled with the normal flare effects due to the change in the relative airflow presented to the disc (pitch-up, increase in rotor thrust and NR) will suddenly put you in effectively a power off regime which even the cleverest governor in the world can do nothing about. Unless the collective is raised pdq, the Nr will accelerate fast and probably overspeed. We do teach pilots to lead with lever btw but it can still catch people out.
The higher the AuM, the more flare required to arrest the rate of descent and the more 'G' experienced.
The point to note is that, to use your terminology, the boundary between loaded and unloaded head can be crossed very quickly when manoeuvring hard and your clever governors won't cope.