Maybe ki-i ku-it or e-ni ku-it "concerning the fact that ..."?

na- is partly written on the left edge.

In contrast to the handcopy, the first two wedges of ÉRIN are rather verticals than Winkelhaken.

According to Groddek D. 2006c, 104 the string might be interpreted as URUPí-x-šu-⸢li⸣-x. The reading of the penultimate sign as -li- is, however, problematic since it is otherwise written with two verticals (cf. obv. 8). If the reading of the second sign following URUpí- as -šu-is correct, as the handcopy by Klengel H. 1990c published as KUB 60.105 suggests, the preceding sign might be interpreted as -wa- (for the writing with two horizontals preceding the vertical cf. -wa- in obv. 6). Yet, according to the photo, the vertical seems to be followed by more than one vertical (which are, however, not visible in the handcopy) so that one might also consider a reading -la- or-at- instead of -šu- .

Differently Groddek D. 2006c, 104: URUla-wa-za-an⸣-[ti-ia. The spelling URUla-wa-za-ti-ia is also attested in KUB 57.87. rev. III 6′.

Or DIŠTAR ⸢É-ia⸣-za?

In contrast to the handcopy by Klengel H. 1990c KUB 60.105, pár (BAR) is clearly visible on the photo.

As in the handcopy indicated, there are still some sign traces preserved.