I apologise. I didn't intend on being difficult; I employed the various terms and expressions that I did simply for sake of efficiency and accuracy. I'll try and rephrase my point with a more conscious concern for simple clarity:
Christ was/is indeed fully human, and in that sense possessed a finite human mind which like all human minds begins as a book with blank pages and which thus progressively collects and stores knowledge in accordance with increased experience.
Christ was/is, however, also fully God. The human mind He possessed, whilst in and of itself a human mind like that possessed by the rest of mankind, differed in that it was the human mind of a Divine Person rather than a Human Person. The Divine Person (viz., God the Word) pre-existed His Human nature and mind, with a 'Divine Mind' (so to speak), which, unlike a human mind, is eternally and infinitely wise/knowledgeable.
When the Divine Person of God the Word assumed a human mind, He retained His 'Divine Mind,' obviously, because it is not possible that any dimunition or alteration should occur to His Divine Person on account of the Hypostatic Union. In this sense, the single conscience of Christ (which is the self-same conscience of the pre-incarnate Son of God), was at the same time informed by a source of infinite wisdom/knowledge (i.e. 'the Divine Mind') as well as a source of limited and progressively developing wisdom/knowledge (i.e. the human mind).
And thus follows the sublime paradox: Christ knew everything, and knew not everything, at the same time. It is at this point that we OO ideally cease further investigation. The Nestorians by contrast are scandalised by such Divine Mysteries, and seek to resolve such paradoxes--in this very attitude lies the foundational seed of their heresy.
When we OO confess the One Nature of the Incarnate Word, we are in effect confessing insofar as the subject at hand is concerned, that "the one person of the eternal Logos Who is the self-same person as the one person of Christ is at once according to the perfect oneness of the Hypostatic Union perfect and deficient in knowledge." The reason we do not emphasise the manner in which the deficiency of His knowledge pertains to His Humanity, and the perfectness of His knowledge pertains to His Divinity, is simply because such is effectively superfluous in that it automatically follows from the mere profession of the respective authenticness of such qualities. In other words, that Christ was indeed authentically deficient and yet at the same time authentically perfect in knowledge logically implies the continued and distinct integrity of His Human and Divine Natures.