I doubt it's considering that directly. What I'm guessing (without having really studied the paper in depth) is that if you have two board positions which would score identically in the end, but where one has fewer remaining liberties than the other (i.e. one is deeper into the tree), then it will be scored more highly.

In other words, the humans commentating the game were evaluating the moves as non-sensical because the outcome (AlphaGo plays here so Lee plays here) is a foregone conclusion and doesn't change the human evaluation of the board position. What it does do is remove uncertainty (AlphaGo plays here, but Lee screws up and plays somewhere else). In their evaluation, humans tend to value that uncertainty (i.e. counting on the possibility of a mistake), but I'd guess that AlphaGo penalizes the uncertainty (i.e. known board positions are scored higher than potential board positions), leading it to over-value simple advancement of the board in the end-game.

The bigger the game board, the more possible states, the better chance a human player has against the AI. Is this the same heuristic in play here - Play a game with more unknowns, gain an edge?