How do Biblical inerrantists explain disagreements about the interpretation of the Bible?

If God can preserve an inerrant Bible despite the fallibility of the humans who transmitted it, shouldn't He also be able to ensure an inerrant interpretation of that Bible despite human fallibility? Yet, disagreements on interpretation persist among Biblical inerrantists. After all, we only have access to our understanding of the text, not the text itself. So, what's the point of presupposing that we have an inerrant manuscript if its interpretation is prone to error? Take, for instance, the dispute between Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists over Genesis 1-11. Why presuppose the inerrancy of Genesis if interpretations are likely to be flawed? Similarly, consider debates about miracles, like [whether we should expect miracles from God or only those of Satan in the end times](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100994/61679) . Or the debate between cessationists and continuationists on the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13. Or disputes over how to interpret certain writings from Paul, with implications on the role of women in ministry. What's the use of assuming textual inerrancy if most interpretations are bound to be fallible and ambiguous anyway? How do Biblical inerrantists make sense of this prevalent phenomenon of exegetical disagreements? According to Biblical inerrantists, why hasn't the God who inspired an inerrant Bible also inspired an inerrant interpretation thereof?