If there's any truth to the theory that the 5th person named by CW is an informant or somehow working for LE or whatever, it's certainly possible that "your affiant" (as named in the AA, i.e. the officer who took this statement by CW) was completely unaware of PG's (hypothetical) informant role, and all the officer was doing was recording CW's statement for the record, as she told it to him.
It's even possible the officer didn't even know this 5th named person whatsoever! Maybe he'd never even heard the name til CW said it. He just included it in the AA, along w/whatever other relevant info CW provided. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't know him, because I'm sure I read somewhere in an earlier thread that PG is from Wagoner, OK, maybe even lives there now, and Wagoner is hundreds of miles from where all this happened! (I live in Wagoner County; it's near Tulsa.)
(I saw this mention of PG and Wagoner early on, before we were told he wasn't a POI and not to sleuth him, so no idea if it's accurate or current info or not, since I purposefully haven't researched him.)
Of course, since this is such a small town, the officer easily may have known PG or known OF him, but still may have been unaware of his (hypothetical) informant status. I think that's supposed to be a secret, right? Need to know basis only! Probably not every cop knows every informant, *especially* if the informant is working for/with an agency that is not the one the officer works for.
Anyway, that's just one way I thought of to explain that name being included in the AA, for all to see, but then not having been charged. I've no idea of the real reason, may have nothing to do w/being an informant at all, I just thought all the speculation excessive and wanted to share this one possibility that it seems people haven't thought about. Sure to be some valid explanation, we're just not privy to it.