If the Jewish Canon was indeed settled as Josephus says than the "Council of Javneh" (sometimes called "Jamnia"), about A.D. 90 would not have "needed" to establish a Canon which included more than twenty two books.
IF there was a council of Jamnia, it was an entirely new thing, as prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, Hebrew "canon" would have been a matter wholly resolved by the Sanhedrin. The whole concept of "canon" would have been foreign to them.
When the revived Sanhedrin, under Rabbi Zakkai was relocated to Jamnia after the fall of Jerusalem, their focus was on the preservation of the Hebrew religion without it's mainstay, the Temple.
There is no authoritative work that meets the claims that anything was taken out or added to the Jewish canon, when it was supposedly defined as canon at Jamnia - although there was a confirmation of the Writings as scriptural (as probably already affirmed during the Hasmonean Dynasty).
If done decisively, which again, I would assert there is no proof for, this was a direct, defensive move against other forces canonizing, and thereby making authoritative, translations which were opposing the true Scriptures supported by Jerusalem, and consequently, the resurrected Sanhedrin at Jamnia.
It is my opinion that Jamnia, as headed by Rabbi Zakkai, and the very top Rabbis from the Temple at Jerusalem, simply espoused what they had always espoused.
Therefore, what did flow from Jamnia, not in a single council, but all the way along, was a denouncement of the Old Testament as found in the Septuagint- as derived from Greek sources and Arabic targums... and a confirmation of the Masoretic and Babylonian sources, of which the Masoretic survives intact.
It is from these exact precincts that Rabbinical Judaism finds it's root, and it is little wonder that Modern Jews and Protestant Christians alike would strive to preserve the authenticity of the Old Covenant.
As to the Apocryphal books themselves, The OP does not address the primary criticism against them- That being the Hellenization of the books generally, which raises questions as to their patronage. There are no extant copies which do not have that heavy Greek flourish, and barring a find which removes these influences, the books must be considered corrupted. That is the main argument against them, from both the Hebrews and the Protestants.