A few thoughts on this account of truth:

I’m not sure about the motivation for a new theory of truth, for one that’s supposed to reckon with late-modern complexities. If anything, truth is less relevant now because of agnotology and the increase of disinformation, due to the breakdown of democracy, the failure of the mass media in the capitalist context, and so on. But just because public relations experts and propagandists have gotten better at lying, doesn’t mean truth has changed. It could mean we’ve forgotten what truth is supposed to be. Yet if we still see there’s something wrong with all the demagoguery, fake news, and hyperreal spin, that means we contrast all of that with the truth, so we must have some intuitive understanding of the latter.

I’m not clear on how your account is supposed to relate to empiricism and positivism. What’s the difference between “truth units” and sense data?

Your account also seems pragmatic, so is there a difference between truth units and utility? If epistemology is supposed to make sense of experience, and we have different experiences based on our respective backgrounds, upbringings, personal character, agendas, and so on, is the concept of truth still needed in such a pragmatic, subjective account? If we’re talking about the contents of personal experience, aren’t we doing phenomenology rather than even epistemology?

You say individuals can have the same experience, as when they witness the same test being performed. But the experiences wouldn’t be exactly the same. Qualia would separate them, as would the differences in background knowledge which would be used to evaluate what the individuals perceive.

Of course, we posit that we often have similar experiences because we model the environment, and we appeal to the best explanation of the patterns we find. The question of truth is how the models relate to the environment. Experience would be the brain’s model, and philosophy and science deal with more abstract models that can be assessed, independent of our personal experience. We can stretch our minds to contemplate things we haven’t personally witnessed. So, there we’ve left empiricism, strictly speaking.