The reason there is such a thing as 'deuterocanonical' is that St. Jerome, and Luther after him, mistakenly believed that the redaction of the Old Testament on the basis of the Babylonian Hebrew Text adopted by the Christ-denying Rabbis of the Council of Jamnia was a true reflection of the pre-Christian Jewish Scriptures.
In fact, the only pre-Christian manuscripts we have of the Old Testament Scriptures are the Greek LXX (oldest ms. dates c 250 B.C.) and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which confirm the LXX, not the Masorete. The oldest extant Masoretic text dates c 1000 A.D.
You keep vainly trying to claim that the Latins 'added' the rest of the Old Testament at Trent. This theory is patently false: the Orthodox, for whom Trent was a conventicle of Latin heretics, regard all of the books you call 'the Apocrypha' and the Latins call 'Deuterocanonical', as part of canonical Scripture on the basis of the Council of Carthage and the Fourth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils. We have always used them, just as the Latins did. No books were added at Trent. Luther removed books.
In fact, we'd rather not call them anything. They are scripture, end of story. Since some made an issue of them and mutilated the canon excluding them, we need to call them something. "Apocrypha" is clearly unacceptable, so this is the term to use.