So, to review, you've adopted the standard overly-strict definition of objective truth, noticed that you can't get universality because we're not omniscient gods, thrown away the idea of objective truth, and left us with a feeling of dissatisfaction about not having a good vocabulary to talk about how "chocolate is good" is a different kind of utterance than "the moon orbits the earth".

Well, wasn't that helpful!

Couldn't you instead talk about coherentism, or drop out of perfect philosophical "objectively" to pragmatically extremely robust scientifically "objectively" (which is basically just a statement of pragmatic coherentism, plus the observation that the number of equally coherent systems of knowledge is, for most things, approximately one, which is a pragmatic but well supported synthesis of foudationalism and coherentism)?

If the philosophers' game is to grab a word, say, "hey, let's make this mean something amazing!", then go "oh, wait, that's impossible", and then throw our word away, at some point maybe we'll stop loaning any words to philosophers. They don't seem to take very good care of them.