Variation Five is very similar to Variation Four. The only difference here is that in Variation Five the cashier was acting to further her own personal interests, rather than those of her employer.
Variation Five does not tell us whether Zack was aware of the cashier's interest in him. For reasons explained in Variation Four, however, it is immaterial. As with Variation Four, Zack intended to commit an offense. As with Variation Four, the cashier's silent ratification of Zack's action does not deprive the State of its options to prosecute Zack.
So what's the difference? The difference is that in this Variation Five, the cashier is complicit. She, too, is now commiting an offense. It is the classic underring situation that Theft Lawyers in New Jersey describe on their Shoplifting page. Thus Zack is guilty of theft, with the additional factor that the cashier in this instance, is also guilty. What the cashier is guilty of is shoplifting. She is commiting an act that is additionally immoral because she is betraying the allegiance she owes to her employer Chipotle. She is betraying the trust that Chipotle placed in her.