That's a helpful clarification to push the discussion forward. I agree that there's objective tracking, since labels can be arbitrarily attached to sets of referents (or to types or tokens), to keep track of them. The correspondence between the referents and symbols helps us organize our knowledge. And we're masters at tracking, so we have elaborate maps.

That enables us to apply our knowledge with technology. The technology works, meaning it achieves certain goals, because it's based on those myriad correspondences, on our proficiency for conceptual tracking.

All of that is as objective as it gets, I grant you. But tracking isn't sufficient for knowlege. For knowledge, you need epistemic justification and thus understanding. Once you add conceptions and interpretations to the maps, you add some subjectivity. So you no longer have pure objectivity, which means the "conceit" behind objectivity is exchanged for a more pragmatic perspective.

Also, while I agree that the distinction between universality or collective agreement and personal idiosyncracies is important, I don't think universality takes us to pure objectivity. That was Kant's point. There may be necessary conditions of human knowledge, but they could be "transcendental," having to do with our cognitive filters, not with noumenal reality. There may be universal ways humans tend to think or to work things out, and that cognitive output may reflect our nature as much as our subject matter.

This is why I question not objectivity itself (as being somehow different from subjectivity), but so-called pure or absolute objectivity. What could it mean to have pure objective knowledge that's in no way reflective of either ourselves, our society, or our species? I have some upcoming articles that will further explore these epistemological issues.