This is actually a question by someone who has thought of an objective knowledge system. But, what does an educated person think objective knowledge consists of?

In my own work, I refer to the recently published Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit, which provides a method called categorical deduction which is metaphorical for math, but uses qualities.

Does anyone have a better answer? Is there any consensus on how to reach for objective knowledge without Nathan Coppedge's methods?

I don't know about consensus, but my version is take note and pay attention, as more will be revealed later. In this way you keep your mind open to more facts and don't get stuck on popular current opinion. The quest for knowledge is an ongoing endeavor that like life and reality requires adjustments along the way. Not just in thoughts but actions.

Is this homework? If it is I recommend additional reading. Try Karl Popper and let me know. He is but one of many published eggheads that like formulas.

Looking for an 'objective knowledge system' is just a lot of words.
I subscribe to the old joke "Everything you know is wrong."

Objective vs subjective could take a big fat book, half philosophy.
Knowledge can take another.
Knowledge is supposed to be truth, even if it's knowledge about something no longer true.
Truth can take a whole set of books.

To me, there are only two truths, love and beauty, the most subjective concepts of all. They are truths because they are universal, even if different for each person.

Math and scientific method do their best to keep approximating truth, but they change constantly. We apply them to our theories and TRY to draw conclusions that we call objective knowledge, but we are challenged by others, as we should be. And objective knowledge morphs on.