It isn't clear from the record we have why the May 2023 answers were provided. Had it been the subject of motion practice to force an answer or a resolve an objection, I would have expected that information to be included in the disqualification motion since it could add to the argument (e.g., "he didn't answer until forced to by the court"). The fact that the rog answers weren't verified suggests to me that this was not in response to a court order and is rather a supplementation of a continuing interrogatory response, and that is suggested in the motion when it notes several times that the interrogatories were continuing and the answers were part of a supplementary discovery. It is also conceivable that these interrogatories were updated by Wade's attorney without a ton of thought about whether they required an update for the period after the filing of the divorce petition.
Also, this response listed in the motion's attachments provides some clarity as to how an interpretation of "the course marriage, including the period of separation" may naturally include the pre-divorce filing conduct without necessarily implicating post filing conduct:
Ultimately, whether Wade took an aggressive legal stance in his divorce proceedings is entirely irrelevant to whether Trump or the other defendants are denied a fair trial. None of this suggests that Wade or Fani perjured themselves during their testimony. None of it suggests that Fani substantially benefited from Wade's appointment or from the prosecution of the defendants.