I doubt you're going to get a real answer (this really isn't -- it's really a comment that's way too long to fit in a comment box).

The problem is fairly simple: neither the question nor the answer is really related to photography. Rather, they're both related to how the firmware of the particular camera in the particular phone you're dealing with happens to be designed, and what data it chooses to encode into the raw files it produces.

The answer would/will apply (almost?) exclusively to that particular camera/phone, not to photography in general. Just for example, when/if I set a manual white balance in my camera, and open the raw file its produces, the "as shot" white balance that's encoded in the raw file seems to remain constant across fairly radical changes in lighting. I just did a quick check of a couple pictures of the wall of my office, first under artificial light, and then opened the blind to get sunlight. The apparent color of the wall, as shown in the picture changes quite noticeably from one shot to the other, but the the "as shot" white balance stays precisely constant.

I'll add that the "as shot" white balance does seem to be coded indirectly -- in particular, although the number given for the color temperature doesn't change from one shot to the other (even though the white balance clearly has changed), different programs opening the file seem to have slightly different interpretations of how to convert what is included back to a color temperature. Just for example in the test I mentioned above, I set the balance in the camera to 5500K. When I open the files with ACR, it says they were shot at 5600K. Bibble, on the other hand, says they were shot at 5231K.