We can ask which map introduces fewer extraneous terms, or leads to less confusion, or is more internally consistent; or which is more "physical" and less "magical"; but neither one "is the territory".

If you do not assign any ontology to your mathematically identical maps, then there is no way to rate them in any objective way. (I don't consider "feel good" an objective way, since people disagree on what feels good.)

It seems to me that this sort of subjectivism runs into difficulty when we notice that sometimes our models are wrong; sometimes the map has a river on it that the territory doesn't, and that as result if we dive into it we go crash instead of splash. See the ending of "The Simple Truth". But perhaps I have misconstrued what you're getting at here?

Yeah, I expected that this cute story would come up. First, my approach can be classified as instrumentalism or even anti-realism, but not subjectivism. The difference is that when models do not match experience, they are adjusted or discarded. In the case of "The Simple Truth", there is an overwhelming experimental evidence that jumping off a cliff does not let one fly, so the Mark's model would be discarded as failed.