The distinction between 'ontic' and 'epistemic' might serve your purposes. 'Ontic' is an adjective meaning 'having to do with being, or the way things really are.' 'Epistemic' is an adjective meaning 'having to do with what is known, understood, or knowable.'
So the actual state of affairs of this galaxy, for example, is an ontic matter. What we know about this galaxy (where the respective planets & moons are, e.g.) is an epistemic matter.
Philosophers talk about things-in-themselves (an ontic category) and things-as-represented or things-as-understood (an epistemic category). Fans of German Idealism use the term "noumena" to refer to things-in-themselves, and the term "phenomena" to refer to things-as-experienced. I think this way of thinking & talking (ontic/epistemic) will do justice to the kinds of distinctions you mention.
A note on quantum states (referred to obliquely in the comments to your question): The Schrodinger's Cat paradox hinges on the notion that whether or not the cat is alive (before the researcher peeks in the box) is ontically unsettled, not merely unknown. It is this that makes the scenario paradoxical.
There are further distinctions that philosophers make that should not be confused for the ontic/epistemic one.
Ontic--having to do with being, reality;
Ontology--the study of being, reality (includes determinations about what category of being is most basic, e.g. 'materialism' is an ontological view)
Ontological--having to do with ontology
Epistemic--having to do with knowledge
Epistemology--the study of knowledge (e.g., what we can know & how)
Epistemological--having to do with the study of knowledge