Outlier check logic was backwards in L3_PAM/L3_CAM

[jmbhughes]

This corrects the logic.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 57.39%. Comparing base (501a07c) to head (0becb00).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
punchbowl/auto/flows/level3.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (0.00%) is below the target coverage (75.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.
❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (57.39%) is below the target coverage (75.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #934   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   57.39%   57.39%           
=======================================
  Files         125      125           
  Lines       13887    13887           
=======================================
  Hits         7970     7970           
  Misses       5917     5917           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[svank]

I think this only affects the logic that ensures outliers get marked as processed, even though they're filtered out from being passed into the flow. The only consequence would be that that unmarked outliers get seen and rejected again and again every time the scheduler runs.