I think you have an important concept right: we build instruments based on a theory that is well confirmed, and then use those instruments to test less confirmed theories. (But as the article details, sometimes things are more complicated, with the link between theory and measurement being one iteratively improving the other).
I agree with other commenters that using terms like “objective” and “subjective” can be confusing, because there are many different ways to understand them. I personally stick with objective processes. Furthermore, whether a process is objective can depend on the domain of knowledge in which the process is being used.
For similar reasons, I avoid words like “fact” and “true” unless there is first some philosophical discussion and agreement on how the terms are being used.
Here is a link on scientific objectivity; the Introduction section defines what I mean by objective process (versus objective product). The rest of the article then addresses details which are mostly outside the scope of the this thread (although theory ladenness comes up again).