The following widely used texts agree with having אֲנוּ
1)The Jerusalem Crown: Keter Yerushalayim (pg. 467)
(2) The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, (pg 867)
(3)Rabbi M. Breuer’s Tanakh( שנט or pg. 359 )
(4) Meïr Halevi (Letteris) Tanakh (pg. 812)
(5) Norman Henry Snaith’s Tanakh (pg. 776)
These five popular editions leave אנו unpointed
(1) C.D. Ginsburg Tanakh (pg. 912)
(2) Koren Tanach (pg. 430)
(3) Adi (A. Dotan) Tanakh (pg. 712)
(4) The Stone Edition of the Tanach (pg. 1172)
(5)The JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh (pg. 1115)
The Westminster Leningrad Codex explicitly marks a Qere/Ketiv distinction at this point: אֲנוּ is the Ketiv (the written form), while אֲנַ֜חְנוּ is the Qere (the traditional reading). TanakhML likewise displays both forms. Thus the difference among editions is not simply a choice between two competing spellings; editions may present the written form, the traditional reading, or both in different ways.
What you wrote is missing an important piece of context, which is that probably in all editions, this word has both a qere and a ketiv.
Thus, I think what you are identifying is just different ways of presenting qere and ketiv, not real differences in what these editions think the “right” or “best” text is.
Bdenckla again thank you for the feedback!
Also, thanks for pointing out the double or near duplicate post.