There is a misconception at work here regarding Luther and the apocrypha. The question of the apocrypha's canonicity was not a significant point of discussion during the Reformation, likely because his position was a common one in the Roman church itself (Occam, for example, was of the same opinion as Luther on this point). Luther's German Bible included the apocrypha in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments, describing them as books that, while not Scripture, were profitable to read. This is very nearly a translation from the Glossa ordinaria in which Luther was schooled. In fact, Luther and his fellows regularly quoted from the apocrypha and even preached from it, without controversy. In this regard, Luther's understanding of the apocrypha represented the theological training he received prior to his period as a reformer.

It was not until the Council of Trent that any controversy arose regarding the apocrypha between the Lutherans and Rome, when Rome formally declared the apocrypha to be inspired and canonical. For more on this topic, see the Examination of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent by Martin Chemnitz.

"The apocrypha" has no universally accepted bounds. The works for which your description is approximately correct are those that the Catholic Church deemed deuterocanonical, not those it considered apocryphal if useful in the sense you discuss (e.g., the Clementine apocrypha); both sets of those are within the ambit of what those following Luther's position consider "apocrypha".

As to the relation to the Jewish canon of the intertestamental period, there is some ambiguity as to where some "apocrypha" works lie (in which the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves play a role.) The position you've put forward is common and goes back to at least Jerome, and holds that the works which were accepted as the Jewish canon, in the Hebrew form they were found in, at much later dates than the intertestamental period, accurately reflect the canon of the earlier period. Which isn't an implausible assumption, and for a long time there wasn't a concrete reason to suspect any particular variance though there was very little reason to assume no variance, either.

I am not arguing that the apocrypha has a universally accepted bounds. There is certainly variance regarding what was considered apocryphal, no question.

However, regarding whether the Tanakh in the inter-testamental period, namely those books that were "laid up" in the temple at Palestine: We have no evidence or reason to suspect that the canon preserved by the Masoretes, was in some part different from the Tanakh.

We know of the dispute between Jerome and Augustine, which appears to be due to ignorance on Augustine's part, who thought the Jews counted the apocryphal books as part of the Tanakh. He was obviously wrong.

Jerome's opinion was shared by Gregory the Great, and even, somewhat ironically, by Cardinal Cajetan in Luther's day. Luther simply followed the best scholarship of his day.