It looks like you are going in the wrong direction.
It would be easier to help if you explain what you want to achieve and why you are using policy-based routing.
I'd still love to know where the wg routing is set up. I may be going in the wrong direction, but I am happy to learn from what is being done well already!
My goal is to have two routers, call them H and W, in different locations. When I connect to H, I have access to devices on the LAN of W as well as the internet from W. And symmetrically when I connect to W, I get access to the devices on the LAN of H as well as the internet from H.
Policy based routing will do this for me. I am also open to other alternatives if you want to propose them!
Hope that helps with your "nuts and bolts" question...that's not quite related to making things work.
I personally setup my routes and tables manually (in UCI syntax, of course ) wihtout the PBR package or checking "route allowed IPs" (especially necessary of some of your tunnels are different ad-hoc Internet VPNs, some traffic can't go to a streaming service, etc.).
This doesn't work if done on both ends. Since route_allowed_ips sets the route for 0.0.0.0/0 to go through the wg interface on both routers, the packets make it to the other router and then just head back through wg.
That is why I originally went with PBR.
I would also ideally like the router itself to be able to communicate directly with the internet, not via WG