I did not answer it, please look at my answer to andrewk

Yes they are unique, but the genius of mammalian brains is that they can disregard the unimportant and focus on the important. Someone started a thread the other day about the amazing observation (no sarcasm intended, it IS amazing!) that, while no two apples are unique, we nearly always successfully recognise an apple as an apple.

It is thus with speech too. Although each speech act is unique, in most situations, given a little bit of context, and occasionally even without context, we can make a confident estimate of the intended meaning.

But when we are given a speech act with no context, that has no clear meaning, that skill cannot be applied. So we search for context to try to find a meaning.

A beautiful example of this is Citizen Kane, where the speech act 'Rosebud' keeps occurring throughout the film and only at the very end do we discover the meaning of the speech act (which I won't reveal in order not to spoil it for those that haven't seen it. I'll just say that it's definitely not what one would have guessed).

There are many other examples in murder mysteries, where the detective puzzles over the dying words or writing of the victim, trying to find enough context to enable them to use the speech act to lead them to the murderer (da Vinci Code, A Study in Scarlet, a French TV episode I saw about trying to decode the dying words of somebody that had been pushed off a cliff).

I'm a big fan of philosophy of language, but only as long as it focuses on how and why people use speech acts. Once it gets to looking at word sequences with no human in sight, I think it has lost its way.

A good example of how a performative function of " I speak" can be clarified is saying " I do" at a wedding ceremony. As Brian Massumi wrote: "Say " I do" and your life will never be the same.
Your legal, social and familial status instantly changes. Before you open your mouth you are one thing. By the time you close it you have landed in another world. A particular man and a particular woman say " I do" - their words undoubtedly have personal meaning for them in their hearts! But their personal intension is not responsible for the magical transformation that has changed their lives.
What has brought them to say this words and what makes this words effectively transformative is a complex interplay of laws, customs, social pressure and tax law. The stereotypical nature of the expression is an indication that it is fundamentally impersonal! The subject saying " I do" is not a person, it is a social function."

The wedding vow was already one of Austin's paradigmatic examples of a performative speech act, which Massumi is simply recapitulating in his own way:

"One of our examples was, for instance, the utterance 'I do' (take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife), as uttered in the course of a marriage ceremony. Here we should say that in saying these words we are doing something - namely, marrying, rather than reporting something, namely that we are marrying." (Austin, How To Do Things With Words).

Do you have a point to make in this discussion about performatives?

"Massumi is simply recapitulating in his way".
According to Massumi, the subject of enancuation " I do" is the abstract machine.
It is a different interpretation of this performative.