Interesting to note that in IM Daniel Rensch's video 0 of his opponent's moves were shown as inaccurate or worse, but his opponent's CAPS score was only 98.3, not 100. So if CAPS is a percentage we still don't know what it's a percentage of.
The CAPS2 documentation makes it clear that the CAPS2 score is definitely not a percentage of anything, so it would probably be a good idea if people stopped putting "%" signs every time they refer to it.
There is a reasonable objective meaning to percentage accuracy, namely 100 x the number of accurate moves / the total number of moves, where an accurate move in a theoretically winning position is one that reduces the number of ply (half moves) to mate by 1 (whichever side is considered) and an accurate move in a theoretically drawn position is one that doesn't result in a theoretically winning position (necessarily for the opponent).
The problem is that nobody including the engines can reliably tell what those moves are unless they're covered by a tablebase and they've only recently started making the relevant tablebases with the 50 move rule taken into account. In any case they may not be reliable either after you've made a few moves they don't approve of because they still won't take the triple repetition rule into account.
So exactly how your CAPS2 scores relate to actual accuracy is anybody's guess. If you give chess.com analysis a sequence that is known to be 100% accurate taken from a Nalimov tablebase, Coach may very well have lots of nasty comments to make about it.

So to summarize this, I would say that accuracy and ELO are totally unrelated, accuracy depends almost always on whether your opponent is aggressive or defensive. Chess.com has an ELO explanation: Elo Rating System - Chess Terms - Chess.com. Does this help??