In Phil 2:26 2495 is attesting παντας υμας ιδειν.

I am sure the reading of 2495 arose from that reading but the scribe (or a predecessor) omitted the first part of Phil 2:26 due to parablepsis:

... πέμψαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, 26 ἐπειδὴ ἐπιποθῶν ἦν ⸂πάντας ὑμᾶς⸃ ιδειν καὶ ἀδημονῶν ...

Even if one would say that it is ὑμᾶς of 2:25 that is omitted and not ὑμᾶς of 2:26, the manuscript is not reading παντας.
Cf. lines 25-26 here: ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/modules/papyri/?site=INTF&image=32495/1147174/2790/10/1805

Is the reason 2495 is attesting to παντας υμας ιδειν in the apparatus that it is considered the intended reading?