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.
No, nothing in the text with necessity points to this.
At this point in time, Simon Peter was not saved
This categorical statement shows unfamiliarity with Catholic soteriology. In order to be saved one has to die and undergo judgment (Hebrews 9:27). No one, -- not Peter, not Paul, not your pastor, not my priest -- is saved while they live. The justification of Peter, as the gospels tell us, was a long process and in that is resembles the justification of many saints.
I do not know what you are saying here
Simply that when an accusation comes from several people more or less at the same time, Peter would not go and deny to each accuser personally. As John writes: "They said therefore to him: Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said: I am not". That is a single denial to many people accusing.