I will focus on your other question.
No. The change in the group averages over time do not have to increase/decrease in the exact same amount for the common trend assumption to hold. I couldn’t imagine a world where the change from period-to-period before some policy/intervention would be exactly similar in both treatment and control groups. To be clear, differences in outcome levels in any period is allowed, but their time variation as exhibited by the trends should be reasonably similar pre-shock. In most papers, demonstrating trend equivalence is often achieved visually with a good plot of the average (group) outcomes over time before some treatment begins. If group trends markedly diverge pre-treatment, or exhibit more volatility in one group and not the other, you could test for group differences with a specification test.
In sum, a perfect clone of the treatment group's time variation is ideal, but is seldom observed in practice. That being said, a visually clear parallelism should be observed in the outcomes before the shock, which we assume will persist in the absence of treatment exposure. A picture is worth a thousand words.