Technically, I think it’s feasible and I can’t think of a reason we must avoid it. I also think it might be useful to have modern experience with transitory soft forks in case we ever again have a BIP50-like situation where a short-duration soft fork may be useful for mitigating an emergent risk.
Less technically, I got the impression before that the proposal was pretty “meh” even if I had been able to fully address all of the criticism. Quite reasonably, several champions of soft fork proposals weren’t enthusiastic about going through the effort of development, review/bikeshedding, and community consensus building for something that might, a few years later, involve additional development, review/bikeshedding, and community consensus building.
I think that concern also applies to cleanup soft forks. What developer working on them wants to run the obstacle-course marathon of getting them to activation only to maybe have to run it again in a few years for no additional benefit?