Use an OpenWrt sysupgrade image for the initial install. It is compatible with the OEM webUI flashing routine and retains the OEM recovery which includes a webUI. (Installing the OpenWrt factory image would also flash the OpenWrt version of the u-boot bootloader which would make recovery more difficult.)
I thought that the OpenWrt version of u-boot would be more bullet proof than whatever the OEM fork provides. Is this not the case?
What “reliability” do you need out of uboot? If your device boots, that’s pretty reliable.
It’s a simple choice.
Do you want a GUI based recovery option for failed flashes
OR
Do you want an up to date and open source uboot that means you need to access the serial header to trigger recovery
openwrt-mediatek-filogic-glinet_gl-mt6000-squashfs-factory.bin is used in OpenWrt's u-boot.
So,
As gl-inet flash routine is OpenWrt compatible, the initial install is done normally with the sysupgrade image.
If you want to use OpenWrt u-boot, you need to first flash the u-boot components and then the factory image which is compatible with that.
(Flashing just the factory image might brick.)
Ps. Learning from the e8450 flash bootchain changes and current difficulties with that, I would be very hesitant to modify the u-boot unnecessarily.