>>896 the pronunciation it supposedly represents is "wole", rather. And in those days there were people writing "woſe" for "whose", for example, as if they didn't really get what the wh's everyone else was using are for. However, it's true that the supporting evidence is iffy. Most instances of "wole" on Google Books from that time (that definitely mean "whole" and not "would") are apparent typos, which kinda makes it poor evidence of being the typesetter's opinion on Orthographie. There were "hole" holdouts well into the 17th c.
I mean irregular -t; there are definitely people around today who still say "heighth" and aren't being hypercorrective. As for the vowel, OE/ME writers apparently had no goddamn idea so neither do I.