A sceptical truth-maker theory holds that for a given statement to be true it must correspond to a state of affairs in physical reality. In an interview with David Millet Armstrong he makes a statement to the effect that, our speech is true when it corresponds to the physical reality, and subjective talk can be qualified as truthful as it relates to our brain patterns of the moment. This cannot be strictly true, without telepathy to test truth of subjectivity.
Let me use an imaginary Mark as the subject of conversation. Mark says, “I am inspired”. Marks inspirational emotion is only truly knowable to him. An outsider, even one most familiar friend, must rely on historical experience and Marks opinion. If Mark is coerced by a Sicilian Mafia don into a pretence of inspiration, it is possible Marks familiar friend would be unable to validate truth correctly.
Only one brain patter must be known for this statement to be verifiable as truth, however let it be imagined that he is in a fMRI machine, or something similar, and under observation by a researcher with an immense collection of known brain patterns. If he imagines inspiration, so it is a secondary mental experience the first being the act of imagination, would it appear the same as if he immediately felt inspiration?
If time is relevant, and time is always relevant, then each subjective experience arises entirely within each situation. There is no true deja vu, our lives never exactly repeat. So the exact emotional state of Mark when in the fMRI has some elements unique to that moment. Therefore it is not strictly true that his subjective state can be verified in any other way than as it was in that moment, it cannot be shown to be identical as when he was inspired by the Mona Lisa or Bagdavita.
So a relaxed truthmaker theory, to avoid this pitfall of the strict, says that certain things are consistent. Much like apples are not all identical, but there are consistent characteristics. The personal experience of each of us are unique, more so than each moment is unique. I personally, currently, hold subjectivity to be an emergent phenomenon, that it is greater than the sum of its parts and cannot be entirely known or graded as truthful from an inspection of the brain or from speech.