The counterexample used in the article is the Book of Mormon, which for sake of argument, I agree with the implication of the article that the Book of Mormon is false doctrine.
In studying Scripture we use a principle of ICE, (Isogogics, Categories, and Exogesis)
Isagogics is defined as the interpretation of the Bible in the time in which it was written.
Revelation is discernible from Inspiration.
The Word of God is Truth and nothing in it is not harmonized with other proper verse. The Book of Mormon fails to meet that criterion so fails as properly being inspired as Scripture.
Categories is defined as comparing Scripture with Scripture in the study of one particular subject.
Exegesis is defined as the study of the etymology, grammar, and syntax of the original languages of Scripture.
Granted all that, you benefit in this analysis by dealing with a completed work. You parse out its contents in the manner described, and verify the work's inspiration. Had not the compilation of the canon already been done quite a while before your denomination's existence, and 2000 years' worth of "Christian" work been compiled that needed a discerning edit to determine, at this late date, canonicity, how unwieldy would the process be? Who could even decide on the criteria to be considered? Is apostolic authorship required, or only authorship in the apostolic era? Why *can't* writings after the apostolic era be considered? Whose authority determines these things as relevant? That's just for starters, and these questions don't even treat very well to the ICE methodology.
The real legwork has long since been done. By the Church. Your method is a good corroborative apologetic tool, but it would never do to determine the canon to begin with.