Oh yes, and when you provide better data about your cases of interdiction, please name the kind of interdict in question with each.
See for this: Thirteenth Century: A Question of Collective Guilt - which you read, right?.
From the beginning of the 13th century, popes and canonists increasingly distinguished between an interdict on places and an interdict on persons, and defined how one worked differently from the other. They further distinguished between general and particular (or specific) forms of such interdicts. This chapter discusses different interdicts including the general local interdict, the particular local interdict, personal interdicts, and mixed sentences.
Actually the one I keep coming across where I can find an end date but not a start date is the interdict of Pisa. However I will point out that common is not simply my take, it is literally part of the summary from the oxford scholarship article I sited above. Meanwhile everything you have presented has been either a reference to how John reacted to the interdict rather than the interdict itself (and how the Pope reacted to his reaction), and your assertion that I am reading everything wrong which does not agree with you.
It considers interdicts imposed on three towns: San Gimignano, Dax, and Béziers. It is shown that the interdicts on these three towns largely worked because most clergy observed them. Even so, the lay powers who occasioned these sentences tried to disrupt their enforcement.
So essentially enforcement was left to local clergy with no effort being exerted by the Holy See to actually do anything beyond issuing the interdict.
Let's see: is it the interdict imposed by Celestine III on Pisa in very late 1197 and lifted by Innocent III soon after his election on January 8th 1198?
Celestine imposed it on Pisa, because the Ghibelline town refused to join the Tuscan League founded in November 11th 1197. There must have been some time between the founding of the league and the final refusal of Pisa to join it - so there was not much time between imposing and lifting the interdict: perhaps a month.
I didn't say that those ones were. On the other hand I have repeatedly mentioned the interdict of Pisa which I have found no indication of a strong papal campaign to enforce nor a strong indication that the local clergy followed the interdict. game wise this leads to interesting questions as to whether clergy who are intentionally disobeying an interdict are furthering the divine (serving God despite orders) or the infernal (thumbing their nose at divine authority) which may be a case by case basis.
However Pisa most definitely was a state in terms of its power and influence though it appears the papacy treated it as a city and gave little thought to enforcement of its interdict.
There wasn't any. The Tuscan League got founded November 11th 1197 - and the powerful Cardinal Lotario di Segni actively opposed its founding. Celestine III was then about 91 years old. He is told to have tried to renounce his office and recommend a successor. Certainly the college of cardinals did not let him do so.
Why Celestine imposed the interdiction on the powerful maritime Republic Pisa is hard to explain.
As the major Ghibelline city in the March of Tuscany Pisa naturally opposed the Tuscan League formed under the auspices of the Pope - so forcing it to join would indeed just have been the next logical step in establishing the League. But doing so would have been a major campaign, likely involving the cities already in the League at the side of the papacy in the first line and indebting the papacy to them.
Anyway, Celestine III died January 8th 1198. At the same day, Cardinal Lotario di Segni got elected Pope Innocent III by the college of cardinals, soon revoked the interdiction of Pisa and advised Viterbo and Perugia not to join the League.
He certainly did not forget to revoke the interdiction imposed by his predecessor.
I know he didn't forget to revoke the interdict, as I have stated repeatedly I could find records about it being revoked, not about it being established. I would not expect to find a record about an interdict being forgotten, since that would intrinsically mean it had not been. My point is simply that interdicts were not always the major event you have portrayed them as and it is possible for one to be forgettable if it was not vigorously pursued. Which is really much more about story possibility than it is about history.