This doesn't look like a traditional inversion of configuration:
At first I dismissed the textbook author as making a typo. But then I realized that this "typo" was repeated throughout the solutions manual.
So I tried drawing a Sawhorse projection of the textbook's answer and my answer, and I found that both are equivalent.
So would my answer also be acceptable? In my answer I change the methyl from a wedge to dashes and the hydrogen from dashes to wedge and I place the SH group appropriately.