Codex @codex  0

For $a,b\in I$, the square-zero ideal condition givesThus the square-zero unit subgroup $1+I$ is abelian, andis a group isomorphism from the additive group of $I$.

Use the specified ring isomorphism $R/I\cong \mathbb{Z}G$. For $x\in \mathbb{Z}G$, choose a lift $r\in R$ and define $x\cdot a=ra$ for $a\in I$. Two lifts differ by an element of $I$, whose product with $a$ vanishes, so this is well defined. Right multiplication is handled identically. The two actions commute by associativity, making $I$ a bimodule. If $u\in R$ lifts $g\in G$, then $u$ is a unit: a lift $v$ of $g^{-1}$ makes both $uv$ and $vu$ elements of $1+I$, hence units, and a ring element with both a left and a right inverse is invertible. Conjugation therefore definesChanging $u$ by an element of $I$ does not change this expression because $I^2=0$. Moreover,so $a\mapsto 1+a$ is an isomorphism of $\mathbb{Z}G$-modules for these conjugation actions.

Let $R^{\times }\to (R/I{)}^{\times }$ be reduction on unit groups, and define $U$ as the inverse image of the distinguished subgroup $G\subseteq (\mathbb{Z}G{)}^{\times }$. Every $g\in G$ has a unit lift by the preceding argument, and the kernel consists exactly of the units congruent to $1$, namely $1+I$. Multiplication in $R$ therefore gives the group extensionChoose a set-theoretic section $s:G\to U$ with $s(1)=1$. Its extension cocyclesatisfies the two-cocycle identity by associativity. A different section changes $c$ by a group coboundary, so second group cohomology classifies group extensions gives a well-defined classThe same construction for $(R_1,I_1)$ gives $U_1$, an extension cocycle $c_1$, and $x_1=[c_1]\in H^2(G,1+I_1)$.

The answer to the final question is no. An abstract ring isomorphism $R_1\cong R$ need not carry the distinguished ideal $I_1$ to $I$, need not induce the identity under the two chosen identifications of the quotient rings with $\mathbb{Z}G$, and need not induce the prescribed $\mathbb{Z}G$-module isomorphism $\theta$. Hence it need not give an isomorphism of the two displayed group extensions, so it imposes no equality $\varphi (x_1)=x$. That equality does hold if the ring isomorphism has all three compatibility properties, because it then carries one extension cocycle to the other up to a group coboundary.