How should I order the results when my primary hypothesis is a simple effect and the interaction is secondary?

I ran a 2×2 between-participants vignette study on stigma. Epilepsy (no/yes) is crossed with depression (no/yes), so each participant read about one of four people: No depression Depression No epilepsy control depression Epilepsy epilepsy comorbid There are eight ordinal stigma outcomes. All comparisons are contrasts from one Bayesian cumulative probit model (brms), each with a 95% credible interval. My primary hypothesis (H1) was that comorbid receives more stigma than epilepsy. My secondary hypothesis (H2) is the interaction, the effect of depression is different with and without epilepsy. To show what the interaction means, I also report the two simple effects of epilepsy (depression vs control, epilepsy vs control, comorbid vs depression) are exploratory. Do I need to report main effects? I can't work out what order to put the Results in and whether to include the main effects as well. These are the three I've been going back and forth between: H1, then depression vs control, then the interaction, then the other two simple effects of epilepsy? The interaction first, then the four simple effects of depression (H1 included), then t. All four simple effects first, then the interaction at the end Option 1 puts the primary hypothesis first. What bothers me is that the interaction ends up in the middle or at the end that seems, IDK, strange to me maybe? H1 is separated from the other simple effects. Most two-way ANOVA guides seem to use option 2, but they assume the interactio…