AKSinghSingh79

Agreed 100%.

I don't know how the consulate is in the Phillipines but the consulates in India are especially tough, often unfairly so. In fact the process is so strict that many legitimate couples have had their lives put on hold due to AP or ruined from a visa denial. This is very true of interracial couples in India who face an additional unfair level of scrutiny than compared with an Indian/Indian couple.
While I definitely agree with your point on increasing the 90 day restriction to 180 days (as it is exceedingly difficult to plan a proper wedding in 3 months or less), I think that you are making a broad generalization when you say the K-1 process should be made more difficult. Maybe you should re-phrase the question to be directed towards the process in the Phillipines. Because I highly doubt individuals petitioning for their loved ones in Nigeria, Morocco, India, and other MENA countries would agree with your statement.
I haven't even started the K-1 process yet but every day I worry that some minor pitfall, as so often happens in the course of life, will be used against my fiance and I and be a reason for AP or a denial.

I don't know how the consulate is in the Phillipines but the consulates in India are especially tough, often unfairly so. In fact the process is so strict that many legitimate couples have had their lives put on hold due to AP or ruined from a visa denial. This is very true of interracial couples in India who face an additional unfair level of scrutiny than compared with an Indian/Indian couple.
While I definitely agree with your point on increasing the 90 day restriction to 180 days (as it is exceedingly difficult to plan a proper wedding in 3 months or less), I think that you are making a broad generalization when you say the K-1 process should be made more difficult. Maybe you should re-phrase the question to be directed towards the process in the Phillipines. Because I highly doubt individuals petitioning for their loved ones in Nigeria, Morocco, India, and other MENA countries would agree with your statement.
I haven't even started the K-1 process yet but every day I worry that some minor pitfall, as so often happens in the course of life, will be used against my fiance and I and be a reason for AP or a denial.

Those aren't "guidelines", and they weren't "issued" by USCIS. It's a checklist and apparently an internal document, presumably used by USCIS to refer a case to the Fraud Detection and National Security unit (FDNS). According to AILA, that document was submitted into evidence at a deportation hearing by ICE, and a copy of the document was submitted to AILA by the alien's attorney. Whether USCIS used that form before that specific case is unknown. Whether USCIS still uses that form is unknown. Whether USCIS is currently using a similar form that's been revised since September of 2004 is unknown.
You are most likely correct that the attorneys I cited probably got their information from that document, but your post is not a summary of the USCIS Fraud Referral sheet, but is an almost direct word-for-word copy/paste of the article by Baughman and Wang, yet you cited USCIS as your source.

New Delhi asks for this all the time. It's best to provide them whatever they might issue a 221g for prior to the interview. They've also been known to ask for a copy of the beneficiary's voter id card and last five years of voting records.
We turned in a guest list, a notarized statement that my fiance doesn't vote, 12 notarized letters of support from our families and friends, a letter and pictures detailing my bridal shower, screen shots from our theknot.com page, a renewed letter of intent that answered questions I thought they might have like why we hadn't physically met each other's parents, evidence of us interacting with each other's family via email, phone or Skype, why we didn't have a large engagement party, why we went the K1 instead of marriage route, pictures of all of his stuff I've brought home over the past year and integrated into our home, phone logs, email logs, Skype logs.
I provided all of that and when we walked up to the CO's counter, the 221g was already printed and ready for us. BUT, when the CO saw me and found out who I was, in the trash it went. Moral of my story: be as prepared as you can be and still expect a 221g. If at all possible, show up for the interview too.
By the way, I've read multiple stories where New Delhi or other Indian consulates issued a 221g for evidence that they already had in their possession and when the beneficiary pointed that out and tried to make them look at it, they said they wouldn't review it and it would have to be turned into the VFS again. Proof that they don't look at everything you send them.

Let's not all get our panties in a bunch over this new policy. This is political trickery - nothing more.
Remember that this is the same president who presided over the deportation of more than 800,000 illegals in two years - more than any other president in the history of the United States over an equal time period. He claims this was to curry favor with Republicans in order to get them to go along with some sort of immigration reform bill. And what sort of immigration reform bill did he think he was going to get if he had to kick 800,000 people out of the country in order to get it? Did he think a bill that required that sort of #######-for-tat payoff was going to include some form of amnesty? Not a chance!
This latest move is unilateral, and perfectly timed to coincide with the upcoming election. He wants Hispanic voters to conveniently forgot those 800,000 he sent packing, and remember his new executive decree (since he doesn't have the power to change the law) that only criminals will be deported.
His past history belies his motives. Don't let this fool you. Whether you're an advocate of compassionate treatment of illegals with a path to legalization, or staunchly opposed to any form of amnesty, this sort of executive trickery isn't good for anyone. It was bad when Bush did, and it's just as bad when Obama does it. This guy flaps in whichever direction the political winds are blowing. If he's reelected you can expect to see this policy changed. He has nothing to lose by alienating Hispanic voters after the next election because he can't run for a third term, and his past history proves he's not bothered by deporting people en masse. If he's not reelected you can STILL expect to see this policy changed. Republicans after overwhelmingly in favor of enforcing immigration law.
In the meantime, what is really different? Are illegals now given a path to legalization? No. Are they getting any sort of long-term promise that they won't be deported? No. The only thing they're getting is a temporary reprieve, as well as the chance to apply for a work permit. As long as they're here and working, might as well get some tax money from them, right?

Um, I would hope it's plainly obvious that they do background checks on you and her and your fiance would be deported and likely banned FOREVER with no available waiver for lying on official paperwork. If this is your attitude then you will not be successful and probably experience dire consequences. If it was important to get married in Egypt then that you shouldn't have done K-1.

"i mean how would USCIS know about it."
It's people like who you take this approach and have this mentality that makes this process a burden for everyone else wanting to play by the rules. Telling a lie to a government official in the course of them performing their duties is a crime; perhaps they don't know immediately, perhaps they never find out, but if they do, you're screwed. As you should be.