"Cam" - yes, the correct (and Cessna term) is "eccentric", and "bushing" in the parts catalog. "Cam" is used colloquially, because perhaps too much use of the term "eccentric" around pilots and mechanics could be worrying!
so rotating the bush to adjust incidence will NOT push or pull the rear spar laterally, so there should be no sweep changes when the incidence is adjusted.
Consider the orientation of the bolt and eccentrics. As is the orientation of the forward spar bolts, and wing strut bolts, the aft spar bolts are aligned with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. Turning the eccentrics has the effect of moving the aft spar up or down as intended. Further to this, turning the eccentrics 'round and 'round, would result in the motion of the rear spar describing a circle relative to the fuselage spar carrythrough, rather than an up and down "slot" motion.
If the "thick" part of the eccentric is set to be up, that rear spar will be positioned down relative to the fuselage spar carrythrough, and vice versa. However, adjustment of the eccentrics may also leave the thick part in or out ('could be in on one side of the plane, and out on the other if careless). If the thick part is in, the rear spar has been positioned a tiny amount away from the fuselage spar carry through, so the effect would be the sweep the wings a tiny amount forward. This effect is very tiny, and unintended in the design. I would have dismissed it as negligible, other than the Cessna tech rep explained to me decades back to look for this error if the plane was not flying as intended. When we flew a side by side comparison of two otherwise identical 150's, the very slight performance differences could be understood to be this difference.
These affects are small, compared to loading, fuel imbalance, or other aerodynamic or flight control defects. But, Cessna wisely built in this adjusting capability so as to keep their clients happy. An experienced Cessna mechanic may anticipate the adjustment. I once maintenance check flew a Cessna 207 whose wings had been reinstalled. The experienced mechanic explained to me that he had deliberately offset one of the eccentrics, as his experience told him that was where to start the fine adjustment from (rather than zero/zero). The plane flew perfectly hands off the first flight. I was delighted to inform him of the wisdom of his work, he saved hours of fiddling, and reflying to deliver a well flying plane to the client.
I once ferried home a friend's 182. It had sat unused at another airport for a couple of weeks, and he wanted it home. My walk around was too casual. I jumped in and took off - wow, it got off the ground really well that day, and climbed crisply! That was pleasing! However, once flaps up, and trimming for cruise, the lateral balance was poor, and the control wheels were not horizontal as they should have been. When I positioned them to be horizontal, the aircraft predictably rolled sharply. I flew it level, and looked around... The ailerons were wrong! Both aileron trailing edges were well below their respective flap trailing edge. Hmmm. When I leveled the control wheel, one aileron was now fine to the flap, and the other well down - 'splained the roll! I assured that the cross wind would favour the side for which I had more roll control available, and landed back at home. The aileron was displaced downward, because the Cessna control lock cocks the control wheel, not the flight control itself. At some point, a tailwind, while the plane had been parked, had pushed down an aileron, and the pushrod was bent. The aileron was otherwise not damaged. Aileron push rod replaced, and the plane flew just fine again! That reaffirmed to me that flight controls, rather than the control wheel, have locks applied. All my planes have external control locks, and I never use the control wheel locks when I park the aircraft. An Air Moorea Twin Otter accident is a much more telling report of why to care about external wind forces on flight controls.
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20070809-0 But that's was longitudinal, rather than lateral...