Pretty much. The purpose of the IARC monograph is to inform other researchers and regulatory bodies to look into carcinogenic substances more closely to determine if they're worth restricting or not based on the level of risk they pose. IARC doesn't make recommendations to consumers or set standards itself. It's not meant to be a public-facing organization. That's honestly a problem with a lot of science journalism is people taking research that is meant for other scientists to propose lines of further research and add evidence to eventually come together into larger metanalyses, but then presenting these as if they are revolutionary game-changing findings on their own, which contributes to this public feeling of whiplash, as in the whole "wait, today eggs and coffee are bad for you, but yesterday they were good?" In reality, no single research project is saying either of those things. They're producing tiny bits of evidence one way or another that is meant for standards and recommendations bodies to aggregate and produce larger findings from.

IARC's piece in this puzzle is to aggregate research showing something is a carcinogen, but this includes a lot of things that are harmless or even healthy in low doses. Sunlight, for instance, is obviously a carcinogen, but the amount of exposure you want is not zero. X-rays can cause cancer, but the optimal lifetime exposure to x-rays is not zero. Once IARC classifies these things, the purpose is to recommend to other researchers to now go look into these to find dose/response curves in animal to see what a safe and unsafe level actually is.

As far as the EPA has been able to tell, glyphosate at the level any human would ever get exposed to from its use as a pesticide, is safe, even though it's a carcinogen. Think of like being in the same city as smokers exposes you to cigarette smoke in the shared air, but at levels nowhere near enough to meaningfully raise your cancer risk in spite of the fact you're regularly breathing in carcinogens. Living in the same room with a smoker is a lot worse. Actually smoking is even worse than that. Probably don't drink straight glyphosate on a regular basis.

Similarly, you don't want to drink bleach, but cleaning your counter with bleach and then eating off of it is not only perfectly safe, but arguably even better than just eating off the counter beforehand, because bleach disinfects it.