Isn't this basically what the OP is saying? Interruptors should try things first, and write down the things they've tried and what happened. After that, they can interrupt without wasting too much time from the interruptee.
This assumes the time interrupted is more expensive than the time spent by the interruptor trying other things, often needlessly.
There is a balance here. Hard and fast rules don't cut it in my experience.
I prefer new hires have a culture of problem solving, but not at the expense of being afraid to ask for help. That is more important than my uninterrupted time.
This usually means some people need to be incouraged to reach out sooner, and others need to be encouraged to try a few things on their own first.
The worst thing I could to is create a culture of fear around asking for help, and I'll err towards having more interruptions to make sure that isnt the case.
I'm reading the OP as "use these considerations to determine when to stop trying and instead interrupt me", and the comment I replied to as "you should never interrupt me unless there is no other option". The former seems to want to optimize for overall productivity between all participants, the latter seems to want to minimize interruptions.