Thanks for reading my question.
My question is about how to write consistent stats report for both the main and the followup (pairwise comparison) from GLMER outcome (2By2 with binomial outcome) in an APA format.

Dataset:
Two IVs: Condition (2 levels, categorical); Group (3 levels, categorical)
DV: score (binomial, 1 as correct and 0 as incorrect) 
Main Model:
m < gmler(score ~ Condition*Group + (1+ Condition  id) + (1+ item), data = dataset, family = binomial)
[This guy works after reducing the model complexity from the maximal model]
summary(m)
Anova(m, type = 3)
 Main Results:
We got a significant interaction of Condition×Group, a marginal main effect of Group, and a nonsignificant main effect of condition (see below).
The data we reported will be Wald X2. For instance: the Condition×Group interaction was significant (Wald X2(2) = 7.13, p = .028)
Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
(Intercept) 117.4950 1 < 2e16 ***
condition 0.0556 1 0.81353
group 5.9676 2 0.05060 .
condition:group 7.1374 2 0.02819 *
4. Followup
When we followed up on the Condition×Group interaction, for the differences of each pair of Groups within each level of Condition, we used the suggestion of function "emmeans", suggested from several previous posts (e.g. post 1 and post 2)
Pairwise Model
pairwise < emmeans(m, list(pairwise ~ group condition), adjust = "holm")
Pairwise Results
$`pairwise differences of group  condition`
condition = Cued:
2 estimate SE df z.ratio p.value
group0  group1 0.0863 0.115 Inf 0.751 0.4529
group0  group2 0.4404 0.126 Inf 3.482 0.0015
group1  group2 0.3541 0.126 Inf 2.821 0.0096
condition = Uncued:
2 estimate SE df z.ratio p.value
group0  group1 0.1065 0.122 Inf 0.872 1.0000
group0  group2 0.0575 0.136 Inf 0.422 1.0000
group1  group2 0.0490 0.135 Inf 0.362 1.0000
My Question
For the main results section, we reported the Condition×Group interaction in the format of Wald X2. For the followup from emmeans function, we do not have Wald X2 from "emmeans", but we get z, estimate, SE, and pvalue.*
How to keep the reporting of the main and the pairwise comparison (followup) results consistent, e.g. reporting both interaction and the pairwise with Wald X(2)?
P.S. I got a reviewer comment to keep reporting the main and the followup results in the same format, e.g. Wald X(2). Any help would be appreciated if it is possible to run pairwise comparison and generate Wald X2. Or is it not recommended to generate and report Wald X2 for the followup.