How self-aware is the Gemara?

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוכה דף יח עמוד א - דף יט עמוד א

אתמר,
סיכך על גבי אכסדרה שיש לה פצימין - כשרה.
שאין לה פצימין, אביי אמר: כשרה, ורבא אמר פסולה.
אביי אמר כשרה אמרינן: פי תקרה יורד וסותם.
רבא אמר פסולה: לא אמרינן פי תקרה יורד וסותם.
אמר ליה רבא לאביי: לדידך דאמרת פי תקרה יורד וסותם - אפילו הפחית דופן אמצעי! –
אמר ליה: מודינא לך בההיא, דהוה ליה כמבוי המפולש.
לימא אביי ורבא בפלוגתא דרב ושמואל קמיפלגי,
דאתמר: אכסדרה בבקעה,
רב אמר: מותר לטלטל בכולו, דאמרינן פי תקרה יורד וסותם.
ושמואל אמר: אין מטלטלין בה אלא בארבע אמות, דלא אמרינן פי תקרה יורד וסותם.
אליבא דשמואל - כולי עלמא לא פליגי.
כי פליגי אליבא דרב;
אביי כרב.
ורבא אמר לך: עד כאן לא אמר רב התם אלא דמחיצות לאכסדרה הוא דעבידי, אבל הכא דלאו להכי עבידי - לא.

I'd like to outline the structure of the Gemara so my point is clear. The content is actually not relevant to my point (or, perhaps, my point is actually not relevant to the specific content), for better of for worse:

The Gemara presents a mahloket between Abaye and Rave. The Gemara then proposes that perhaps this mahloket is "the same" as another mahloket between Rav and Shmuel. That is, Abaye/Rava disagree about the rule for one set of facts, and Rav/Shmuel disagree about the rule for another set of facts. The Gemara suggests that the reasoning for the different rules lines up - in this case, Rav with Abaye and Rava with Shmuel.
The Gemara then claims that the mahloket between Abaye and Rava is really within the ruling of Rav. ie, they disagree as to what Rav would say about their case/facts given what he said about the other case/facts. (Apparently they agree on what Shmuel would say to their case. Rashi says Abaye would still rule differently than Shmuel, though I'm not sure this is the only reading. In any case, what's relevant is that neither is in the position of having to make Shmuel's position mean something it doesn't seem to.)
The problem with saying that both Abaye and Rava are ruling within the opinion of Rav is that Rav's ruling actually seems to contradict the reasoning of Rav. The Gemara is aware of this, and comes up with a way for Rava to explain how Rav could rule one way in one case and apparently rule differently in a similar case - arguing that the cases are not actually similar enough to justify the same ruling. This part of the Gemara is in bold.

Now, why am I writing about this? One frustration I often have with Gemara is that the Gemara will put plausible and implausible arguments on equal footing. I generally, for the sake of my own sanity, assume that there is some degree of self-awareness on the part of the editors that the symmetry they impose is not always real. However, this is usually (though by no means always) just an assumption. The reason I brought this Gemara is that it is an example of a situation where the Gemara itself is aware that one position is more plausible than the other, hence nifty for me.
Recall, the Gemara sets up the position of Rav in one case, then asserts that Abaye and Rava disagree as to what Rav would say in a similar, but not identical, case. The similarities between the cases create the inference that Rav would side with Abaye, however, leaving Rava out in the cold (since the Gemara is not content just to say "Rava holds like Shmuel"). The solution is for Rava to come up with a distinction betweeen his case and Rav's original case which makes the rule from one inapplicable to the other. Said distinction is, in my opinion, not wholly implausible, but definitely not as intuitive as simply saying that Rav and Rava disagree. Structurally, however, the Gemara sets up two equal opinions as to Rav's position. That said, on closer inspection, what language does it use to do this? It says אביי כרב. ורבא אמר לך: עד כאן לא אמר רב התם אלא.
"Abaye is like Rav. (ie, Abaye follows from the simple logical understanding of Rav), and Rava would say to you: Rav would not extend his ruling from there this far..."
The statement "Abaye is like Rav" implicitly undermines the whole project of saying "both Abaye and Rava hold their opinions according to Rav." The editor seems clearly to be picking sides. I thought it was neat.
Thoughts appreciated.

PS: I should note that the motive for making Rava consistent with Rav, as opposed to just saying Rava follows Shmuel, seems to be to harmonize what the actual halakhah is. That is, according to the principles of psak, the normative halakhah should follow both Rava and Rav, so there has to be some way the two are compatible... So, the less-plausible reading is halakhically necessary!