from my understanding "constitutionally" you can always create a role in the super-circle and then immediately push it down to the sub-circle within the same Governance meeting.
My question here is if this is "good Holacracy practice". Generally the super-circle creates the context of the sub-circle but how the sub-circle then enacts its purpose and accountabilities is up to the sub-circle and NOT the super-circle.
Also: From the level of the super-circle the sub-circle is only a role, filled by the Lead Link of the sub-circle.
So from my point of view it really depends on the tension that you are trying to solve. Would adding an accountability to the whole sub-circle also solve your tension and then the sub-circle could find out themselves what they want do with this added accountability within? Then this would be my favorable move.