That is more clear, but still describes what I thought I understood of your position. It's rather unconventional, so it took me a while to be certain what you meant.

I think that 'subjective' means that a mind is assessing the morality. The key idea is that different minds could assign different moral judgements, so the judgement is mind-dependent.

In contrast, any morality that considers the state of an agent's mind in the computation of that agent's morality can be either objective or subjective.

For example, suppose it was written on a tablet, "the action of every agent is moral unless it is done with the purpose of harming another agent". The tablet-law is still objective, but the computation of the morality of an action depends on the agent's intention (and mind).

I just experienced a flicker of a different understanding, that helps me to relate to your concept of subjective. Suppose there were two tablets:

Tablet A: The action of every agent is moral unless it harms another agent.

Tablet B: The action of every agent is moral unless it is done with the purpose of harming another agent.

Tablet A measures morality based on the absolute, objective result of an action, whereas Tablet B considers the intention of an action.

Whereas this is an important distinction between the tablets, we don't say that Tablet A is an objective morality and Tablet B is a subjective morality. There must be other terms for this distinction. I know that Tablet A is like consequentialism, and Tablet B includes, for example, virtue ethics.

If I understand you correctly this is my interpretation as well. But to clarify: there doesn't even have to be an agent in the judgment itself. Take the proposed judgment: "Black holes are immoral". This can either be subjective or objective. You are an objectivist if you look to something other than a mind to determine it's truth value. If you think the fact about whether or not black holes are immoral can be found by looking at the universe or examining black holes, you're an objectivist. If you ask "How do I feel about black holes", "How does my society feel about black holes" or "How does God feel about black holes" you are a subjectivist because to determine whether or not to accede to a judgment you examine a mind of minds.

Edit: I just read byrnema's comment and now I think I probably don't agree with you. You could also be an objectivist or subjectivist about a judgement of a purely mental fact.

Objectivist: Jealousy is immoral because it was written onto the side all quarks.

Subjectivist: Jealousy is immoral because I don't like jealousy.