Right now, everything is sealed. That said, I understand your argument that the person involved will necessarily refuse to consent to the disclosure of their identity if they are asked for permission to do so.
The purpose of getting everyone's consent was really to respect people's integrity and protect the whistleblower and other public servants. If the name of the alleged wrongdoer is disclosed, it forces that person not to do it again because they are now exposed. Second, it can allow other victims to say loud and clear that they have experienced the same thing. However, I understand your point that the alleged wrongdoer could refuse to have their name disclosed.
If all people except the wrongdoer consent to their names being disclosed, can the disclosure still be made?