doctorbeat

Yeah that makes sense, we don't want to bog the interviewer down with too many.
But, for instance, we went to visit my wife's mom in Wisconsin. There's photos I took of my wife and her mom, and photos my wife took of me and her mom, but no photos of all three of us together.
We thought maybe a sequence of photos would tell the story, but then there's the problem of ending up with too many...
You just don't think 'hey I might need these for an immigration interview' at the time.

On the contrary, I understand the concerns of the OP.
Living 'under the radar', even for many years, yeilds a surprisingly small 'paper trail' of evidence of a relationship.
Luckily for us, my EAD has arrived and we're scrabbling to get my name on bills, bank accounts etc before our interview.
Without evidence like that, there isn't much you can acquire.
Sure, you can take photos and receive greetings cards, but lack of a job means it may have been impossible to take a vacation together, for instance.
Even if you can afford a vacation, many people would think it too risky to travel by air because of ID checks.
Without an SSN it's practically impossible to show evidence of co mingling of assets, even though they have probably been mingled for years.
I'm sure the interviewer will understand this though.

Ok, I understand that with some awkward mental gymnastics, one could interpret it in the negative way you suggest, but the general tone of the message does not seem to concur with that.
It's quite possible that the lawyer misinterpreted things, but it seems that he is passing on news from AILA, which is not open to his interpretation.
If this memo is meaningless or bad news, why did AILA liason report that a favorable conclusion had been reached?

I thought that the field office in SD had received a memo telling them that all AOS overstayers must be denied?
Seems to me that took away their jurisdiction to approve cases.
The impression I got was that this new memo is telling them that they still have jurisdiction to approve even after the 90 days.
I don't profess to understand, as I am not a lawyer, but at least the memo wasn't the dreaded one we were expecting, ie. a similar one to the one the SD field office received telling them they must deny overstayers.
JimVaPhuong, I mean no offence, and you certainly seem to know your stuff, but are you actually an immigration lawyer or an enthusiastic amateur?

I see the problem, it says "legal alien allowed to work"
It's my understanding that while the AOS application is being processed, you are temporarily legal.
Someone who knows more about this needs to reply, but my gut tells me that he should be able to do this.
How's the application going? Which field office is dealing with your application? When did you apply?
Your fellow overstayers are eager to know

Am I right in thinking that if we did a), the worst that could happen is that they could send us an RFE?
In that case, wouldn't she then have several other pay stubs/bank statements to submit as further evidence?
She gets paid every two weeks, and the raise will actually come into effect on her next paycheck (wednesday) so I expect we'll have a few pay stubs to send with the application.
In an ideal world, we'd have plenty of stuff to send, but we just have to work with what we've got.
I hope it's enough...