But your solutions imply things that you would probably not accept to do if you were the one having to do the work for these solutions.
You are saying that people will be blamed for taking too much time to an example saying it would took 10h of someone's time instead of 5 minutes. Why the company will value more "your" deadline than "the operation" deadline? You are basically saying you are okay with "operation" being the target of people unhappy as long as they are not unhappy with you.
You are saying people should escalate. But on the example, the person who has the solution is the person you say should not be disturbed. So you are just asking to disturb uselessly people who cannot help, so your solution is even worse.
You are saying more time is needed to develop a more comprehensive knowledge base. But who should take the time to fill up the knowledge base if not the people who have the answers, which, in this example, is the people you say don't have time. (and moreover, funnily, those people complaining to be distracted are also very very often not doing any effort to share their knowledge somewhere accessible).
I'm slowly getting very irritated by the whole WFH debate: there is way too much arguments that boils down to "the problem is that _I_ am the one that people distract, so let's do my solution that is sooooo much smarter, let's do something where _I_ am happy even if it makes the situation worse for everyone else". That slowly creates this impression that a lot of pro-WFH are just little kids.