I would suggest to stay "tension driven" and to let the Gov process clarify this issue.
What is the tension behind the proposal to create the role within the Sub-Circle? Is this proposal relevant regarding the grounded activity of the Sub-Circle?
Knowing that if there is any tension, the Upper-Circle may at any time either add a new accountability to the Sub-Circle and restructure the Sub-Circle by moving into it Sub-Circle the "offended" Upper-Circle role, or move out of the Sub-Circle the "offending" role...
Hope that helps,