When terms are applied repeatedly they tend to get reified in the minds of those who apply these terms.
Especially if there is insistence in the context of debate like "No it it this" "You do not understand that it is that" reification is necessarily the basis of such talk regardless whether there is affirmation or rejection of the validity of a term in a given context.
Therefore it seems appropriate to recall occasionally what one refers to when applying a certain term.
So taking "All"
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All.  Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
attachment or its removal ("non-attachment") refers to "All", i.e. there is nothing whatsoever that is not covered in the context of "objects" or "phenomena"
As to the 12 limbs of DO the meaning of "attachment" in the context of "quality" of the subject
refers to limb 8 and 9 (craving and clinging).
In the context of neither object nor subject
"attachment" refers to the "clinging aggregates". Be it "All" or be it DO it boils down to the "clinging aggregates". "Aggregates" of course is just an arbitrary heuristic categorization of experience, kind of a "learning device", a term ("aggregate") or terms ("form, feeling, perception... " etc) that can be applied in the context of communication about experience.
That is important to keep in mind: If we are talking about experience we are talking about the aggregates with their "inherent quality/tendency" of clinging. ("inherent" here not in a philosophical sense).
Interesting question would be how this "inherent quality" of clinging relates to the so called "inherent potential" which is the topic of this thread.