Unlearning seeks to remove specific knowledge from large language models (LLMs), but its effectiveness remains contested. On one side, "forgotten" knowledge can often be recovered through interventions such as light fine-tuning; on the other side, unlearning may induce catastrophic forgetting that degrades general capabilities. Despite active exploration of unlearning methods, interpretability analyses of the mechanism are scarce due to the difficulty of tracing knowledge in LLMs' complex architectures. We address this gap by proposing unPact, an interpretable framework for unlearning via prompt attribution and contribution tracking. Typically, it quantifies each prompt token's influence on outputs, enabling pre- and post-unlearning comparisons to reveal what changes. Across six mainstream unlearning methods, three LLMs, and three benchmarks, we find that: (1) Unlearning appears to be effective by disrupting focus on keywords in prompt; (2) Much of the knowledge is not truly erased and can be recovered by simply emphasizing these keywords in prompts, without modifying the model's weights; (3) Catastrophic forgetting arises from indiscriminate penalization of all tokens. Taken together, our results suggest an unlearning dilemma: existing methods tend either to be insufficient - knowledge remains recoverable by keyword emphasis, or overly destructive - general performance collapses due to catastrophic forgetting, still leaving a gap to reliable unlearning.