Side-effects of higher interest rates are usually drying up of "easy money" (low-cost loans). Combined with the fact that VCs had a sudden shift (due to the loss of "easy money") and are now actually evaluating whether a startup is actually viable before committing funding to it, it is not surprising that investors demand existing companies that are no longer viable to orderly wind up in order to have some money than the real possibility of losing it all.
Docker is different: it has a name already so it can bleed a lot of money (à la Twitter while it was a public company) and there is generally a significant holding in large enterprises. I'm guessing that Notable didn't have significant notable enterprises using it that will make investors more relaxed with their red sheets.
It's hard to accept something you've poured your life into and had such high hopes for isn't working out. This is why every company that gets bought has an optimistic blog post talking about how they can finally get things done with the support of the acquiring company. They really believe it. They just proved it's nonviable, and they still believe they'll be able to keep trying.
It's not accurate that every company that is acquired is non-viable. For example sometimes it's more about timelines because building your viable business into a different kind of business will take a lot longer than you are up for. Sometimes it's because the principals are more interested in doing something else, etc.
