Ok, this is what I had hoped. The rules are really bad at explaining how a "stack" would resolve. I believe your example is the best way to explain it. Even though I honestly think it's dumb. Generally player A plays a card, player B responds and then player A has the chance to respond to player B's action.
This way the rules are written player A not only responds, but his card resolves first. So it sucks out the opponent's cards and strategy while they have to wait to be the last to resolve their card. This is why I do not understand how interrupts work based on the rules stating the active player resolves his interrupt first in the case both players play interrupt cards.
I don't think that there's any problem with the rules. An event starts to happen, player A interrupts that event, player A's interrupt resolves, then player B could choose to interrupt the original event. Alternatively, the event starts to happen, player A interrupts it, player B interrupts player A's interrupt, player B's interrupt resolves first because interrupts resolve before whatever they're interrupting.