boffintech - always respect and learn from your posts. Your point on my quote may be correct, say for North America (and in this I am including Europe, Australia, etc). But working in remote areas of China with local subcontractors - or similarly in India or in Laos, or in Cambodia or in Indonesia - it is not relevant in my experience to the quote at hand. Curing is not in their mindset - no matter how much you rant and rave - no matter how many letters and issuances of non-conformances to specifications. You likely have not seen Chinese contractors using a cement-mortar mix, place it in 40deg sun and then go for 4 hours of rest to get out of the sun. No, they don't cure it. Which, of course, is why it crumbles on touch and why they have to redo and redo and redo it. Or having to truck water 20 or more kilometres in little tankers because there is no water at the site - or if there is, it is easier to pay someone to "bucket" the curing water onto the structure rather than use a pump and other suitable means - but being human, those who are to do the job decide to sit out of the sun with the rest of their mates because they don't want to be out in the hot sun all by themselves.
You are correct, though, that additional cement is used in most mixes. It is more of a point that since there is no "history" of concrete manufacturing in remote areas using specific aggregates and cement types, then you have a target strength at the mix design level that is in the order of 8 to 10 MPa higher than the required 28-day strength (if the standard deviation of a mix isn't known, you have to up considerably the target strength). Of course, as a "history" does develop (say after 30 or 40 test results), they could reduce the cement content. But, it is seldom done not the least bit of which is likely due to overseeing authorities not wanting to accept a reduction of the original mix design consituents - or the contractor note wanting to be bothered to save a bag of cement per m3.