The necessity of having x, y, z be pairwise co-prime is proved by, say, assuming gcd(x,y)>1.
Then a∣Nbc+b+c becomes x∣dNyz+y+z, and so we must have gcd(x,y)∣z, absurd, since under this assumption it then follows gcd(x,y)∣gcd(x,y,z)=1.
On the other hand, if the co-primality condition holds, consider the integers
xyz−∑x<2xyz−∑x<⋯<(∑xy)xyz−∑x.
These ∑xy integer numbers will yield different remainders modulo ∑xy, since if ixyz−∑x≡jxyz−∑x(mod∑xy), then also ∑xy∣∣i−j∣xyz, whence i=j, since we have 0≤∣i−j∣<∑xy and gcd(xyz,∑xy)=1. Therefore there will exist some (unique) 1≤t≤∑xy such that ∑xy∣txyz−∑x, i.e. txyz−∑x=C∑xy for some positive integer C, therefore txyz=C∑xy+∑x, so x∣Cyz+y+z et al. We found a suitable value C for the triplet x, y, z (for similar relations with the ones sought for a, b, c). Then all the other suitable values must be of the form C′=C+Mxyz, since we need have xyz∣(C′−C)∑xy, while gcd(xyz,∑xy)=1.
Now the time has come to analyze the last condition. In order to have a∣Nbc+b+c, and the similar others, equivalent to x∣dNyz+y+z et al., we need have dN=C+Mxyz for some non-negative integer M. Denote e=gcd(d,xyz); then e∣d, so e∣C+Mxyz. But then we also must have e∣xyz∣(C+Mxyz)∑xy+∑x, hence e∣∑x.
Conversely, if e∣∑x, then e∣xyz∣(C+Mxyz)∑xy+∑x, so e∣C∑xy. Since clearly gcd(e,∑xy)=1, this means e∣C. Therefore we need have edN=eC+Mexyz, and since clearly gcd(ed,exyz)=1, take M≡−eC(exyz)−1(modd/e), wherefore ed divides eC+Mexyz. Take now N=dC+Mxyz (of course, N′=N+Mabc also works).