What is the difference between non-repudiation and plausible deniability

Question

Both non-repudiation and plausible deniability seem to deal with proving or denying actions, but their definitions appear to conflict. Non-repudiation ensures that a party cannot deny their involvement in an action, while plausible deniability allows someone to deny knowledge or involvement in something. Could someone explain the core differences between these two concepts, preferably with examples to help me understand their practical implications?