For the record: FCTM (my bolding):
TThe crew will elect the landing configuration according to the "maximum weight for go-around in CONF 3" table provided both in QRH and in FCOM:
. If aircraft weight is below the maximum weight for go-around in CONF 3, landing will be performed CONF full (and go-around CONF 3) as it is the preferred configuration for optimized landing performance
. If aircraft weight is above the maximum weight for go-around in CONF 3, landing will be performed CONF 3 (and go-around CONF 1+F). The CONF 1+F meets the approach climb gradient requirement in all cases (high weights, high altitude and temperature).
If a go-around CONF 1+F is carried out following an approach CONF3, VLS CONF 1+F may be higher than VLS CONF3+5 kt. The recommendation in such a case is to follow SRS orders which will accelerate the aircraft up to the displayed VLS. It should be noted, however, that VLS CONF 1+F equates to 1.23 VS1g whereas the minimum go-around speed required by regulations is 1.13 VS1g. This requirement is always satisfied.
Perhaps there is no such thing as reason to it. Maybe all G-As can be flown in 1+F and it also gives a better climb gradient. As the performance may be limiting in certain case when overwight, the procedure designer decided to keep it simple and mandate 1+F for all
grossly overweight CF3(2,1,0) go-arounds, maybe even to spread it across different 32S family members.