Yes, I get that. Let me give you another way to look at it, that is not inconsistent with what you are saying.
Consider Homo erectus. They are not quite like any Homo sapiens or chimpanzees alive today. There is debate one whether to classify them as “human” or not, in a way that does not apply to any extant “humans.” Looking back into the past, for many important features, we are not sure where they sit in the continuum between us and a Chimpanzee. How much language do they have? How much technology and culture? What is the erectus-condition? Of course there are opinions on this, but there is not a settled answer. Homo erectus sits outside the classification of “human vs ape” we have from only extant animals. In this sense, they really are transitional forms.
So the question is, suing extant forms as a guide, were the common ancestors of humans/aps and human/monkeys more or less monkey or ape or human? Do we have close analogues today, or were they more like Homo erectus, for whcih there is not a clear extant example.
I understand also that we are grouped together all in cladistics. however, as I understand it, the common ancestor of all mammals did not have a placenta. This appears to arise later through convergent evolution in several lines, or at least that is one theory. So there are traits we see in all mammals that are not in our most recent common ancestor. So the first mammal it seems may not have had all the extant hallmarks of being a mammal. I’m asking an analogous question about those from whom we evolved 6 million 10 million 15 million years ago. Where they like extant monkeys or apes, or would they be better described as something different?