… καὶ ταὐτὸν ἡγησάμενος τὸν πᾶς προσδιορισμὸν τῲ ἄνθρωπος ὀνόματι καὶ ποιὴσῃ τὴν ἀπόφασιν τῆς πᾶς οὐκ ἄνθρωπος δίκαιός ἐστιν καταφάσεως οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος δίκαιός ἐστι καὶ μηκέτι φυλάξῃ τὴν οὔ ἄρνισιν ἐν τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ λέγει νῦν ὅτι οὐ δεῖ οὕτως ποιῆσαι τὴν ἀπόφασιν …
and maintaining the same, he [adds?] the quantifier ‘every’ to the noun ‘man’ and constructs the negation of the affirmation ‘every not-man is just’ as ‘not every man is just’ and does not avoid any more the addition of the negative particle to the subject, now he says that the negation must not be constructed in this way…
These subjunctives without an are very confusing. In addition, this phrase : καὶ ταὐτὸν ἡγησάμενος τὸν πᾶς προσδιορισμὸν τῲ ἄνθρωπος ὀνόματι may have a different meaning.
NB there is a lacuna before this fragment.