the problem is, that grammar is secondary to vocabulary. Take a look at a lot of european languages that were essentially semi reconstructed from grammarless rural versions where they survived mostly based on their vocabulary and grammar forms which varied wildly even across small distances.
What are you talking about here?
If you're talking about the reconstruction of unattested pro-languages. Then grammar plays a very strong role in the comparative method. I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about.
It doesn't help that we don't know the underlying system if any, there is to khalani. It might be an aproximation of english without articles and some multiple word meanings. It might be an aproximation for a completely different language It might be a few random words and phrases with a lot of K's which sound cool together.
There is none, that's my point. You cannot create phrases without grammar. Besides, the traditional model of making a conlang is
Because the things later on the hierarchy depend on the former. Unless you're making a perfectly isolate language (which you will have decided upon at the grammar stage), words will have some amount of synthesis to them and in order to form words you need to have grammar and certainly phonology.
The truth is, in terms of what something means lexical translations of the words are much more important than grammatical rules as those can give you rough understandings of what's meant. Take I am running today and I run today. The meaning of both is fairly different, but both convey a very similar rough gist. They tell us what the action is, in what timeframe. Hell you could even drop the pronoun, like a lot of languages do and the gist would still be there.
That says very little about that Khalani is a super poor attempt at a "constructed language" mostly not done by anyone with any experience in either linguistics or making a language and really zero-effort.