I think the purpose of the Bull was to make sure, just in case a heretic was elected and later deposed, that there wouldn't be an issue over whether or not the heretic's Bulls, etc. were valid.
Yeah, I think for that to be practically applicable, I think some future pope would have to declare that that pope had in fact been an antipope and that that bull had applied to him. That would still be questionable, but I could see a case where, say, if some future Pius X type pope made such a declaration about Francis, we could be more sure about said future Pius X's pontificate than that of Francis.
But I don't see how the way that sedes practically use this isn't quasi Protestant. "Well I think he's a heretic so I won't obey him." If that was the correct conclusion under the Roman paradigm, wouldn't it be more reasonable to just conclude that Rome was wrong about what the Church is and go EO?
I mean my problem here is this is basically unfalsifiable. The Church's claims can't ever be tested if, in any event where they would be falsified, you can just be like "nah, antipope"