Pretty sure that rule isn’t enforced
I don't think this 95% rule is exactly what most of the Kennel believes it to be. If it was, clubs with poor overall rosters would be forced to over pay their players, and this would destroy the whole point of a salary cap - which is supposed to stop bidding wars and players salaries climbing so high that they send their clubs broke! NRL Administration are not the sharpest tools in the shed, but even they are not that stupid.
I think the rule means that whatever maximum amount you contract to play your players, you have to spend 95% of it. You can't, for instance, draw up contracts that comprise 30% straight salary and 70% winning bonuses, because, if the team went badly enough, you would only be paying out a small fraction of your cap.
This is guesswork on my part, based on the assumption that the NRL are not complete idiots (perhaps a dangerous assumption), and I hope somebody with some inside information can comment.