Patching in place, lifting a coating, and which surfaces can be brought back and which cannot.
7 questions in this harvest fall under this subject. 3 answered so far.
Yes, and it is the reason this material is worth specifying. A chip is filled with a mix matched to the existing matrix and aggregate, ground flush and sealed. The US General Services Administration publishes the procedure. What it does not do is fix movement — a crack caused by a slab still moving will come back.
The binder and the pigment, not the colour on the surface. A restored patch in a listed floor has to use cement from the same source and pigment from the same batch as the original — which after eighty years may not be obtainable, and that is a finding to make before the work starts rather than during it.
Yes, and this is the strongest argument for terrazzo over anything printed. The aggregate runs through the body, so a damaged area is filled with a matching mix, ground back into the surrounding floor and polished with it. The seam is a change in sheen rather than a change in material. What cannot be repaired is a printed tile.
These are the phrasings people typed, not headings we invented. Where one has an answer the link is live; where it does not it is printed plain, and that is deliberate — a printed question with nothing behind it is an honest promise, and hiding it is not.
Read the answer first — it says which of these to specify and why.
Ordered by how many questions each one holds.