This has been a regular source of confusion (and occasionally, excessive amounts of work) for years. After a thorough analysis, I'm unable to find a compelling justification for this behavior; "late" late answers are infrequently reviewed, and even more rarely actioned; the exceptions are primarily on sites where the queue piles up for weeks and then gets cleared out, mostly negating the value of having a queue in the first place: giving feedback to a new user weeks after they've posted has little utility, while tools like the (10K-only) "New Answers to Questions More Than 30 Days Old" are much faster to scan and more thorough in their criteria for inclusion if you're just looking for non-answers.
So with that in mind, today we're gonna start excluding these answers from the queue once they're more than 7 days old. This is how it has worked on Stack Overflow for the past 6 years already, so there's a side bonus of consistency here... However, this threshold can be adjusted on a per-site basis if necessary.
While I was reviewing the data for this, I also took a look at the First Posts queue: posts here were dropped after they were 30 days old, but most actioned reviews happened much more quickly; here the exceptions were limited to sites where the majority of review tasks were invalidated, either because the post was closed or deleted from outside the queue, or because it simply got too old. Again, not much value in letting these pile up: it becomes discouraging for reviewers and provides progressively less value to either the author or the site. So I'm reducing the threshold here to 14 days, which covers the vast majority of actionable reviews.
...I also managed to break Late Answer syncing for a solid hour, so... Sorry about that.