There might be a confusion in those phrases. As a reader of kierkegaard, specifically on reading his Postscript and in reading other books related to him, I have encountered those terms separately in separate books, and has not understood clearly the difference, or are there any? Is subjectivity the criterion for a truth? or truth as a criterion for the subject? One writer said that in "Truth is subjectivity", Kierkegaard is asking "how to be human"? How about the others? What are the difference?
Truth cannot be subjective. It must be something objective, universally valid.
That does not mean something cannot be subjectively true.
Looking at a cylinder's projection from one axis you may see a circle, which is true but not the truth.
Looking at a cylinder's projection from another axis you may see a rectangle, which is also true but not the truth.
So in both cases, the observations are subjectively true, but the actual universal truth is that the come from a cylinder.
Therefore, subjectivity can lead to the truth.
So truth can be presented as subjectivity but is not subjective.
Epistemologically speaking, any statement is either an affirmation or not. In Overmind's example, the "true" statement is "I see a rectangle" or "I affirm that I see a rectangle" or "it is true that I see a rectangle."
In that sense, one is making a "truth" statement, but it can then be proven that the statement "that object is a rectangle" is false.
Tenaciously clinging to personal affirmations based on experience and refusal to see evidence that contradicts those affirmations is what, in my opinion, has led to the widely held notion that truth is relative. It absolutely is not. Any affirmation is either true or it isn't.