A variant of the Parking Lot storage is a “bolt-on”—and they are quite similar approaches.
In this case, the knowledge is not integrated but it is, somewhat, retained for use. Essentially, a separate cognitive and labeled “box” is set up that holds the new knowledge. It is accepted that this does not well-integrate with what is known, but the knowledge in the box is dealt with as a separate and distinct artifact. In some cases, this knowledge will start to become integrated, in other cases it may evaporate or simply stay in its box.
When the knowledge in the box does, or seems to, conflict or contradict with the main body of knowledge a certain amount of "cognitive dissonance" may occur. In this case, people may hold and assert quite contradictory items of knowledge at the same time. Usually, of course, some of that knowledge is the embedded type while the other is the "bolt-on." Humans have psychological mechanisms that they employ to deal with such situations, but there is usually a cost in psychic energy.
Example: A lawyer may contract to defend a person whom they know to be guilty. The evidence of guilt is often put in the attorney’s cognitive “box” to allow the attorney to discharge their duty, as they see it, in defending the accused as if he or she was totally innocent. In this case, the knowledge of guilt is not (internally) denied and is not forgotten; indeed, it may even be used to craft a defense strategy. The psychological mechanism used may call on what the lawyer considers to be a higher order remit: that the person, guilty or not, deserves the best defense that the lawyer can provide. The attorney may also consider that the justice system is best served when a robust defense is presented which requires the prosecuting attorneys to present an equally robust case based on evidence. Interestingly, given the definitive knowledge of guilt the lawyer may genuinely celebrate with the defendant when a not guilty verdict is returned. Although this result might be evidence of the skill of the attorney and therefore worthy of celebration, it is also clear evidence of a miscarriage of justice which would require additional rationalization for the lawyer to maintain psychic balance. There is often a cost to this kind of mental juggling.