Nedarim 72b: Is Rami bar Chama's Question Resolved, Or Not?

From my Rif translation:

{Nedarim 72b}
Mishna:

דרך תלמידי חכמים עד שלא היתה בתו יוצאת מביתו אומר לה כל נדרים שנדרת בתוך ביתי הרי הן מופרין
וכן הבעל עד שלא תכנס לרשותו אומר לה כל נדרים שנדרת עד שלא תכנסי לרשותי הרי הן מופרין אם משתכנס לרשותו אינו יכול להפר

IT IS THE PRACTICE OF TORAH SCHOLARS THAT BEFORE HIS DAUGHTER DEPARTS FROM HIS HOUSE {in marriage = nisiun}, HE SAYS TO HER, "ALL THE VOWS WHICH YOU VOWED IN MY HOUSE ARE ANNULLED."
LIKEWISE THE HUSBAND, BEFORE SHE ENTERS INTO HIS CONTROL WOULD SAY TO HER, "ALL VOWS WHICH YOU VOWED BEFORE YOU ENTERED INTO MY DOMAIN ARE ANNULLED," BECAUSE ONCE SHE ENTERS INTO HIS CONTROL HE CANNOT ANNUL THEM.
Gemara:

בעי רמי בר חמא בעל מהו שיפר בלא שמיעה ושמע אישה דוקא או לאו דוקא
ובעיין לא אפשיטא

Rami bar Chama inquired: Her husband, may he annul without hearing? Is "and her husband heard it" exact {and thus required} or not?
And our question is not resolved.
{Therefore we would act stringently.}

If we actually examine the gemara, we see that Rava responds to Rami bar Chama's query based on the Mishna. To cite a fuller translation from Soncino:

Rami b. Hama propounded: Can a husband annul [a vow] without hearing [it]: is, and her husband heard it, expressly stated, or not — Said Raba: Come and hear: IT IS THE PRACTICE OF SCHOLARS, BEFORE THE DAUGHTER OF ONE OF THEM DEPARTS FROM HIM, TO DECLARE TO HER, 'ALL THE VOWS WHICH THOU DIDST VOW IN MY HOUSE ARE ANNULLED'. But he did not hear them! — Only when he hears them does he annul them. If so, why make a declaration before he hears? — He [the Tanna] informs us this: that it is the practice of scholars to go over such matters. Come and hear, from the second clause: LIKEWISE THE HUSBAND, BEFORE SHE ENTERS INTO HIS CONTROL, WOULD SAY TO HER [etc.]! — Here too it means that he said, 'When I hear them.'

So Rava gives a very compelling answer from the Mishna. This give and take which follows is typical of the style of the anonymous setama digmara which tries to find ways to argue the other side. But if it is indeed post-Talmudic, and Ravina and Rav Ashi are sof horaah, we should not say that this is an unresolved question, with all the halachic implications. Furthermore, I find the push-off extremely weak. Specifically, how can the gemara say:

Come and hear, from the second clause: LIKEWISE THE HUSBAND, BEFORE SHE ENTERS INTO HIS CONTROL, WOULD SAY TO HER [etc.]! — Here too it means that he said, 'When I hear them.'

when the end of that second clause is "BECAUSE ONCE SHE ENTERS INTO HIS CONTROL HE CANNOT ANNUL THEM?" It would seem that the annulment would only apply at the hour he heard, even though he already has fulfilled the making of the pronouncement. But if it is only chal once she enters his domain, it is extremely difficult, IMHO, to say that he says this to her because he no longer has the power to annul once she enters his domain. There are, of course, possible answers (e.g. some argument about it applying limafreia once he hears later), but one can always offer false teirutzim to justify even that which is not true.