"Apocrypha", "Deuterocanonical", etc. are all just words that some people use to try to pretend that the canon of scripture is more uniform than it ever actually has been. Witness, for instance, how the Ethiopian broader canon of 80+ books has always been much larger than the canon of their mother Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, or how the Apocalypse of St. John was not included in the Syriac Orthodox canon until the time of Thomas of Harqel (then bishop of Mabbug/Manbij, Syria, working at the request of HH Athanasius I Gammolo) in 616 AD. These facts did not prevent these three churches from being in communion with each other, since they had and have the same faith. The same can be said about differences in the EO canon or the RC canon, such that you can find them, because those churches likewise share the same faith, whether it's a Maronite Catholic and a Latin Catholic, or a Greek Orthodox and a Georgian Orthodox, or whatever combination you can think of concerning two churches and peoples who are in communion with one another.
So debates about the number of books there are or "should be" in the canon really fall flat, if measured against what people have actually done throughout the centuries. I guess I can sort of see why they are important to a certain type of Protestant (though I do wonder what our more traditional, "high church" friends might say), since this is a major distinction to be made between them and the Roman Catholic Church in particular, but why that should mean anything to anyone else is a little less clear to me. The Bible is not a monolith, and throughout history, most Christians have been at least implicitly okay with that. I still am (but explicitly so!), and I doubt I'm the only one. It's not like it would matter if you magically got the number of books "right" if you didn't know how to interpret them properly, so maybe focusing on the number is focusing on the wrong thing.