To be blunt, it's a little wacky. My feedback:
a) what is the rationale for having pre-aspirated consonants
b) why pre-aspirated sonorants and not just voiceless sonorants
c) why a uvular nasal phoneme
(rare) but no velar nasal (common)
d) why random uvularized sounds
e) why /ts/ but no /dz/
f) why palatal affricates and fricatives (rare) but no postalveolars
g) why four rhotics
with one random labialized consonant and a uvular trill (rare)
h) why a palatal lateral fricative
(rare) but no alveolar lateral fricative (common)
i) why a contrast between mid and open-mid vowels
(rare) but not close-mid and open-mid (common)
j) why /ae/ and /ao/ but not /ai/ and /au/, or /ei/, /ou/, /eu/, /oi/ etc.
k) why do /t, d/ get lenited after front vowels (no conditioning factor)
l) are ejectives and implosives phonemes or allophones
m) why bilabial fricatives (rare) and not labiodental (common)
n) why clusters of stops that differ in voicing
I mean, strictly speaking, none of this stuff is impossible
. It's just very unlikely that there would be this many violations of near-universal rules in a single language. I've highlighted the ones I think are the most dubious. (Especially that lateral fricative - what the hell?)
I have a proto-language from which I could easily derive my inventory.
Are you asking me why or HOW?
If it is "why", then the answer is why do I need to have a reason? I think why is a pointless question.
a) Probably V:C -> VəC -> VɦC -> VhC -> VʰC (This is far more likely if the C is unvoiced). In any case, go ask Icelandic and Faroese, considering they are some of the only natlangs to have them.
b) Same reason as above. Also the tilde (~) symbolizes free variation. The pre-aspirated sonorants are in free variation with the voiceless counterpart.
c) The uvular nasal could come out of a change in the lines of nasalized vowel + plosive -> vowel + nasal (Ṽq → Vɴ). Japanese has it, along with alveolar nasal and bilabial nasal...
d) Why not? I mean it's not like Semitic languages don't have at face value randomly pharyngealized consonants.
e) Many languages only have /ts/, like Hebrew...
f) Why not?
g) Why not? Though the uvular trill belonged once upon a time to the uvularized consonants group. The labialized trill is only analyzed as such phonetically, phonemically it is ordinary /r/. I recall English <r> being pharyngealized and labialized...
h) Why not?
i) Why not? There are a few/many languages with such an inventory...
j) Why not?
k) Why not? The conditioning factor IS that they happen after front vowels, word-finally...
l) Well considering it is under the "Allophony" section, I would say yes...
m) Why not?
n) You don't need to have a rationale behind your consonant clusters. I even asked this question to other conlangers...
I was told by several experienced conlangers that my phonology is beautiful and perfectly plausible...
Also, rare does not mean unusable.
I'm hardly breaking these so called "near-universals"