Don't forget Trent's scholar Cardinal Seripando.
"The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.
“[Seripando was] Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici“; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.
I hope to return to that some-in, but more-out wrinkle at later date, to look into the ramifications of that added complexity either oft misunderstood, or as I suspect, have at times and place within apologetic exchanges, the possibility for confusion of the issue been deliberately exploited by those on whichever side of the argument would lack integrity.
Your posting this was timely, please forgive the tardiness of my own reply.
Previously, I've run across same, or similarly sourced material as you have earlier today provided to this thread, while yet still earlier today I was thinking on the very aspect found mentioned in the introductory portion, and again there near the bottom of the quoted portion that should not be casually overlooked by any who would be interested in the truth of the matter;
Years ago I'd done some amount of investigation as for the way the voting went at Council of Trent regarding what's come to be known as Deuterocanon, and after some tedious searching, come across accounting (numbers) of the vote, for and against, and though not recall precise numbers (or where to again find the account, though your source could perhaps be a good place to begin) do recall that among the minority (those who were opposed to fuller inclusion of these OT apocryphal writings into 'canon' more proper) were as characterized --the smarter guys the ones more into theology, thus by default, more likely to have been properly informed as to issues pertaining to canon.
If memory serves though, there was one influential on the "for" fuller inclusion side of things who was highly ranked in the reputation for scholarship department also (along with a few lesser luminaries) with some of those voting possibly having switched from "against" to "for" during discussions preliminary to eventual vote taking, which voting as it were, was something of a long and drawn out affair, not being like they all gathered and put their colored beans or what-have-you in one jar or another to be tallied.