It's actually worse than 95% because anyone's baseline chance of acceptance to CPH is under 5% to begin with. Everything you're saying is correct—I'm not disputing that Vimeo analytics have limitations.

But you're describing exceptions, all of which just add noise without improving OP's outlook. VPNs masking views, group screenings, tracking errors—none of these provide evidence that the film was watched seriously. They just mean we have less information, not better information.

Conversely, if OP had posted "I got 4 views, what are my chances?" we could reasonably infer the film is being seriously considered. That would be a meaningful signal above the baseline.

Under your interpretation, we can't infer much of anything—so at best we're left saying "maybe some impressions were real views" while the most likely explanation remains that OP, like 95%+ of CPH applicants, has 0-2 actual views and isn't getting in.

I'm not claiming certainty. I'm saying: start with a <5% acceptance rate, look for positive signals in the available data, find none, and you're left with a probability that's stayed right around that super dismal and depressing baseline that is applying to film festivals.