Strengthening of Shoenfield's result on the recursive omega-rule

It is trivial to show that Peano artithmetic ($$\mathsf{PA}$$) supplemented with the $$\omega$$-rule is complete. Joseph Shoenfield (`On a Restricted $$\omega$$-Rule', Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. 7 (1959): 405–7) showed that this is true even if we replace the $$\omega$$-rule with the recursive $$\omega$$-rule; i.e., we admit

$$\frac{\phi(\bar{0}), \phi(\bar{1}),\ldots}{\forall x \ \phi(x)}$$

only if there exists a recursive function enumerating the proofs of $$\phi(\bar{0}), \phi(\bar{1}),\ldots$$.

Is it known whether this result can be strengthened? E.g., is $$\mathsf{PA}$$ $$+$$ the primitive recursive $$\omega$$-rule complete? $$\mathsf{PA}$$ $$+$$ the Kalmár-elementary $$\omega$$-rule?

Let us consider Schütte-style proof of completeness of $$\omega$$-logic. This proof works as follows. For any sequent $$\Gamma$$ we define it's canonical (cut-free) pre-proof (i.e. possibly ill-founded proof tree that locally obeys the rules of $$\omega$$-logic). The general idea here is to define pre-proof, whose conclusion is $$\Gamma$$, so that each possible rule is applied at some point. Next we show that if there is an infinite path in the cannonical pre-proof of $$\Gamma$$ there is an infinite path, then $$\Gamma$$ is false. Henceforth a sequent $$\Gamma$$ is true in $$\mathbb{N}$$ iff the canonical pre-proof of $$\Gamma$$ is well-founded.