intervenir à l'état de

16:23 Sep 1, 2017 

1) is my initial interpretation, though Christopher's comments have caused me to have soem doubt.
2) is inadvisable, as the use of 'may' could seem to imply permission, which is clearly not applicable here!

I don't think they are ALSO "covered with yellow ochre" — where did you get that idea from? The French says:

« Le sycomore et le cèdre sont ... recouverts d'une couche d'ocre jaune, tandis que l'acacia se passe aisément de couleur, l'usage et le temps lui donnant sous le poli une patine qui se suffisait à elle-même. »

So sycamore and cedar wood are covered with ochre, "while acacia (wood) can easily do without colour..."

Again, I find it unclear whether it means that acacia ALWAYS manages without colour, or just may do on occasions; whence the notion of 'any' (or not!).

16:18 Sep 1, 2017 

You can safely NOT check that box if you wish... it is often considered courteous to allow the chosen answerer to make the glossary entry and thereby earn the extra BrowniZ.
Only Asker and chosen answerer can subsequently edit the glossary entry — other than mods and site staff, of course!

15:22 Sep 1, 2017 

Could someone tell me for sure that if I do NOT check the box to enter the term into open glossary the answerer will have that option? Should I or should I not check that box? I just want to be sure the answerer gets full credit. The explanations on the site just aren't very clear.

18:23 Aug 28, 2017 

based on everyone's feedback, I thought of:
1. Any color that does appear on these is in the form of either blue mastic or paste inlay.
2. The only coloring that may appear on these is in the form of blue mastic or of paste inlay.
I really like "in the form of" for "à l'état".
It's weird also that these are covered with yellow ochre, yet the author is not counting this as "la couleur". Perhaps I should open another post?

13:38 Aug 28, 2017 

You can hardly claim "there is considerable disagreement" — we all unanimously agree on the underlying meaning, the only issue being quite the most appropriate way to express this in the most concise and elegant form in EN.
This is hardly a technical question: it is simply an issue with the interpretation of a basic grammatical construction that might be encountered in any field. No specialist technical knowledge is required.

13:32 Aug 28, 2017 

that the mere fact that there is considerable disagreement about what is meant here --and how this should be translated-- is sufficient to warrant its being given a "Pro" status.