I take issue with this representation of my statement to you. The framing may imply that I support the argument that a original or certified copy is not necessary. I am not making that claim. Further, I would strongly discourage presenting a photocopy as a sworn certified copy.
I would entertain (and have) that there is a degree of absurdity to sending original or certified personal documents, which could (in some cases) even contain PII data of minor children, half-way around the globe--to a 3rd world country where postal items regularly go missing--just so the immigration officer can glance at it.
Were it not so plainly absurd, I might not have hesitated to rush those documents sooner, rather than later.
I do claim that it may be possible to deceive the interviewer with a high-quality, but not certified copy, but I would also say, "do so at your own peril."
I asked my wife about exactly what the immigration officer did. She said the immigration officer went directly to the last page, made a comment, "There should be wet ink, this is a photocopy. I need the original."