I agree, but that doesn't rule out non-local interactions in general

Depends on the definition of “interaction”.

Two systems affecting each other

Then the non-locality of entanglement doesn’t get you that because it concerns a single system.

Even so, we still call it interaction. And it still raises questions about quantum gravity.

So much for your own definition of “interaction”…

Why are you being rude to me?

That was not my intention.

If there is a non-rude way of conveying the message “when I said that it depends on the definition of interaction you gave me one and then you told me to ignore it” please assume that I had written that instead.

I see what you did there

It doesn't rule out non-local interactions as in general we can rule out local non-hidden variables but not global ones.

What these party-pooper theorems do is largely rule out being able to differentiate non-local interactions from local interactions... which doesn't mean they don't exist, but if they do, there's large pieces of the puzzle missing before we can show they do.

To be perfectly frank, quantum entanglement and wormholes are just the manners in which QFT and GR respectively manifest the concepts of nonlocality. That’s my understanding of the ER=EPR dictum, anyway: physics is fundamentally nonlocal, and these are the means by which the two leading theories express that nonlocality within their own lexicon of information/observation and curvature/trajectories (respectively).

I think ER=EPR still implies physics is local, but locality is dynamic rather than static. It is a mechanism by which spacetime can be constructed from quantum physics, but all the physics still takes place locally on it.