Right, here, the "errant disc" returned in the correct sleeve is a completely unrelated Coltrane record, which was clearly not noted by Amazon. I get all of this. I just don't get why someone would go to this trouble without at a minimum returning the same title on vinyl, either an older version or the same but damaged version.
If this was an intentional switch, now this person has a new Neil Young record, no sleeve, and a Coltrane sleeve, no record. Maybe they also have an old/damaged Neil Young record and sleeve. But if that's the case, why not keep the Coltrane record and sent back the old/damaged Neil record in the new sleeve to Amazon, like
@MikeH described. I just think it's an odd mystery.
Edit: perhaps (1) the original buyer actually received a Coltrane record in a new Neil sleeve, returned it, and Amazon just slapped it back on the shelf, or (2) the original buyer had a Neil sleeve only, and wanted the record too