Isn't the reason for this inability to define causation sufficiently, that we use that notion in a diffuse way in everyday life?
Isn't the reality of everyday life that all the notions that we use we use them in a "diffuse way"? This doesn't seem to have prevented progress to be made in mathematics, science, engineering. What you say implies that there is a lot of theories of causation, which means that many bright minds have tried.
For one thing, maybe we should pay attention to the everyday notion of cause. This is clearly not what many people do, as demonstrated by one answer here. I quote:
So if we take as a premise some situation A, and we can use our rules to derive as a consequence a second situation B, with the consequence B happening later than all of our premises, then we say that A causes B.
I would describe this view of causation as typically scientific. Yet, it is apparent that this is not the ordinary notion that issues from everyday life. So, formal theories of causation fail to provide any perfect definition of causation probably because they don't even try to model the everyday notion, not because the everyday notion is "diffuse".
The reasons that they don't try may be trivial. The history of humanity is replete with false theories because it will always be much easier to produce at least some of the many false theories which are conceivable than to produce the only one which is true. Isn't that enough of a good reason to fail?
Another good reason to fail seems to be that many if not most bright minds tend to pooh-pooh everything which is not formally articulated, and the everyday notion of causation is certainly not formally articulated. And if you pooh-pooh something, you are not going to be motivated enough to want to dignify it with a proper formal model of it.
Yes, that's about it.