I'm not sure it "beats" the S5, you would probably have to use some sort of formula using the different yaw angles and weighting the values based on how much time someone spends at that yaw on average. I think the guys at FLO did something similar with their wheels and came up with a single number to determine average drag for a wheel. An S5 maybe better for really, really fast, flat riding that sees a lot of 0-5 degree yaw angles, but at slower speeds you are going to see more high yaw numbers and therefore the KVF on the Trek may be better.
HOWEVER, my only thing is that the S5 (and the Venge) achieve similar drag numbers without making massive concessions like integrated front and rear brakes. This chart also entirely leaves out the Scott Foil which is essentially the same bike but with slightly deeper foils and standard brakes.
It is a cool looking bike, I just don't understand some of the design choices. You are willing give up the accessibility and functionality of traditional brakes, but your cable routing remains the same? Why not route the cables behind the stem like the Cervelo and almost all modern TT/Tri bikes. Then you require a proprietary seatmast, but it looks like the same one that has come on the Madone for years, ie round, and not aero at all. And ultimately in the pursuit of some holy grail of aero/light/stiff, the downtube looks like it flairs really wide at the BB.
I guess some decisions look like compromises (the traditional cable routing and fat BB) to keep it rideable, whereas other decisions like proprietary brakes are the sort of thing you would expect to find on the aero at all cost bikes like the S5 or AR.
Ultimately, I guess it is the perfect bike to market. Is it aero? Kind of. Is it light? Yeah. Is it stiff? Sure. Sort of the old saying, Jack of all trades, Master of none. The perfect bike for your dentist.