The fine-grained chronology is arbitrary, because the gospels do not mention time at all.
All four gospels describe the same set of denials; each describes three denials. As an arithmetical possibility there could have been 4 x 3 = 12 denials if we assume that each evangelist describes separate events. However, there is perhaps a slight incompatibility with the second accusation; the rest match completely. So at most there may have been four.
These are the matching aspects:
1. First accusation is from a woman servant. John identifies her further as a “porteress” but that is not a contradiction with the other three accounts.
2. Second accusation involves several people in the audience. That is the common aspect; there are discrepancies of which we’ll talk later.
3. The third accusation comes from a man and happens a while later. The synoptics mention that the accusers noted that Peter is a Galilean; John does not mention that, but it is not a discrepancy.
There are two incompatibilities:
Gender and number of the second accuser(s). Matthew and Mark identify the second accuser as one woman, accusing Peter this time in front of others. Luke has a man as a second accuser, and John says “they” accused Peter the second time. Is this a serious discrepancy? Note that all but Luke agree that a small crowd is present and the accusation is done with them present. So John’s “they” is not really discrepant with Matthew and Mark, as all three describe a small crowd accusing. That Luke identifies the second accuser as a man and does not mention the crowd is still compatible with there being a crowd. I think, John’s “they” is the common denominator, so to say, for the second accusation: it came from several people at once. Luke remembers a man accusing, Matthew and Mark remember a woman pointing to others, and John remembers several, which is probably exactly what happened. In any event, this is not a discrepancy in the number of denials, but in the number and gender of the second accusation.
The second incompatibility is the number of crowings. Only Mark noticed the second crowing and remembers that Jesus also had predicted two crowings. Others speak of one crowing. This does not allow us to separate Mark’s set from the other three because otherwise the three denials match, as we’ve seen. In any event, this is not pointing to separate denials since surely Jesus was not abused first during two crowings and then during a separate crowing.
To do this, you must not have a disagreement of grammar, which shows absolutely that there must be at least two different women and two different men, and that one of the women accused Peter on two different occasions, once before the first crowing, and then after the first crowing but before the second crowing. That indisputably accounts for five denials. Either the Bible accounts are false, and Jesus' prophecy is false as well, or your incomplete story is false.
But regardless of the exact accounting, even an inexact one says that if Peter did not sometime after his denials acknowledge and repent of his total depravity and unfaithfulness, and cast himself on Jesus'faithfulness alone, without any personal excuses or works, he would have died and gone to hell. Up until this moment, Simon "Peter" WAS NOT SAVED.
Jesus kept him from harm, according as He accounted to the Father only hours before; but without Peter's persistent, total committed trust, even He could not save Simon under the Law, nor under Grace. Without faith, it is impossible to please The God.
It is true that Simon did utter that unassailable foundational ideological nugget of wisdom, "Thou art The Anointed One, the Son of the Living God," upon which the entire basis of the human assemblage of unified believers depends, but it did not come from any part of Peter's mental acuity or spiritual stature. It was put in his mouth by Jesus' (not Peter's) Father, to be revealed through the preaching of the Gospel, of which the keys of the Kingdom of God is a metaphor.
But Simon's utterance was not a saving one for him then, for it was but a short time later that Peter did utter the remonstrative words of his father Satan, the false and unpardonable sin of the Devil's false gospel, to announce his rejection of the True Gospel of Jesus' death and resurrection, for which Jesus rebuked him very strongly.
It was his father Satan that prompted Peter's six denials, which marked him Hell-bent except for the Father's power, into whose care Jesus had committed him.
At this point in time, Simon Peter was not saved. Make no mistake about it. He was no different than you or me, born with Sin as a master, and unavoidably prone to commit it, for which sins Jesus suffered and died.
I do not know what you are saying here. Annas' and Caiaphas residences were next to each other, and connected by a covered alleyway, a "porch" or portico.
Jesus was taken first into the council chambers of Annas' residence and examined/tried (and abused) there. Subsequently Annas had him bound and sent to Caiaphas residence through the alleyway, where he was held at the door of Caiaphas' door until after the second crowing, He was then admitted to be tried and judged until daybreak, at 6:00 AM. He was then sent to Pilate's judgment hall for a final sentence to be pronounced.
At this season anywhere in the world, near the equinox, daybreak is at 6 AM and sundown is at 6 PM. On any farm with chickens, the rooster always crows at first light, an hour before daybreak. But in this case, a rooster also crowed about an hour before 5:00 AM, and that is when Jesus was sent from Annas to Caiaphas.
Are you proposing some different arrangements?
In fact, your approach reads into the scripture a preconceived notion, and is thus eisegesis, an illegitimate way of interpreting God's word.
The above study uses proper methods of eisegesis, of deducing from the original inspired scripture essential elements that are not up to argumentation, and are thus the proper way to prepare for expository interpretation and application of the example to a person of our time claiming to be a "Christian," and able to instruct others in The Way.
Note that another reference is given by aimhigh in Post #4 comment to this article that also confirms this conclusion.
When we finish this little conundrum; we can tackle who; what and how many men, gardeners and/or angels were seen/listened to, by various numbers and names of women at the empty tomb that early morning.