Baal Haturim naturally picks up on it, calling the yud a vav ketiah, a cut-off vav. Thus, the implication may be, it is no yud. All agree it a vav, but it is deficient for some cause. The cause is Shelumiel ben Tzurishaddai, who is the same as Zimri. Compare with the same word קראי by Korach, again a krei / ketiv, but without even a cut-off vav. (Or rather, the word there is with a chirik, but even that is not present.) The reason is that there they were all wicked, whereas here it is just Zimri. Was he a sinner even at this point, though, or is this preemptive?
I have no list of those who treat this form. But we do have Avi Ezer (also pictured above). On the above pasuk, Rashi writes:
Ibn Ezra wrote:
That is, it is the passive, that they are called (constantly) for every important matter of the congregation.
Avi Ezer cites this and suggests that according to this, it is correct to explain both the krei and the ketiv in their respective manners. Namely, that the congregation is called by these Nesiim (the yud?), and further, that the Nesiim are called by the congregation (the vav).
Meanwhile, we should compare with Bemidbar 26, in parshas Pinchas.
kesiv with the vav and the keri otherwise. Will we now say that the vav was specifically put in because Dasan and Aviram were so holy? Was that not the reverse of what he said on the previous pasuk, in parshas Korach?
Perhaps I can innovate a derash here (for the yud), that they were the ones who called out to, and stirred up, others, in their fight against Moshe and Aharon.
It would seem that it means elect in all cases, but the word takes different forms. But why alternate the krei and ketiv in each of these cases?