Rather, since the as your premise is false so is your conclusion. For your premise that the deutros are Scripture is begging the question, being the very thing that needs to be established, while since you seem to admit that the deutros were not held as being Scripture by those who sat in the seat of Moses, and whom the Lord never reproved for its canon, and it took Rome over 1400 years after the last book was penned to settle the issue of which books were Scripture, then according to your reasoning, you are charging the Holy Spirit with neglect or inability for all these years in failing to assuredly establish these books you hold as so necessary, and and therefore, being imperfect, He cannot be a member of the Trinity. This lack of certainty either impugns the church of Rome for most of her history, or the Holy Spirit.
And if want to argue that the canon was indisputably settled before 1546, then by implication your charge against Prots is applicable to esteemed Catholics down thru the centuries who doubted or rejected the deutros, and thus they were lost sinners.
And since the Orthodox hold to a (slightly) different larger canon than the church of Rome, leaving you being the one with a smaller canon, then according to your reasoning, you can charge them or they can charge Rome with impugning the character of the Holy Spirit of God, either not protecting His Holy Word from the inclusion of error, or insisting the Holy Spirit and did not assuredly provide all the counsel of God.
You can argue that the Holy Spirit used the church of Rome to affirm what the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) would not, but likewise we can argue that the deutros were not part of the 1st century LXX, or quoted as Scripture/thus said the Lord etc., leaving the presumed judgment of those who sat in the seat of Moses uncontested, and with Prots holding to the most ancient canon.
The real issue is the presumption that ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is essential to assuredly know what Scripture consists of and means, and that Rome, as the historical steward of Scripture, is that magisterium, but which is an argument that cannot stand. But Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
However, both men and writings of God were discerned as being so by the common people, even in dissent from the magisterium, with the basis essentially being due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation. The deutros lack such and include absurd such fables as Tobit and the historically false Judith (while the Wisdom of Solomon has much to commend it, but is falsely attributed) and thus remain obscure.