1) The gloss for qay' is "be a problem, be a hassle". The use of "be" in the gloss suggests it might be intended as a stative verb, though I don't think it's ever been used either adjectivially or with a -bogh so I can't say for sure. So you can probably just get away with ghu' qay'. (My usual assumption is that a verb which has a "be" gloss can be used statively. I'm not sure about words like vIH "move, be in motion" or wal "vibrate, be in a state of vibration", in which the "be" gloss might simply be there to clarify the intransitivity of the earlier non-"be" gloss.)

2) wej qay'bogh ghu' feels wrong to me. Are there examples where an N-N construction or a number-N phrase is interrupted by an intervening -bogh clause, A (Vbogh B)? In this case, qay' isn't transitive, so it's not likely someone would get confused and interpret the wej as an object. But splitting the construction like that feels... awkward. It might not be strictly ungrammatical (or it might be) but stylistically it's kind of jarring.