One more piece of evidence that it isn't the scalar assignment that is reaching all the way behind, here we have a list assignment in scalar context where the scalar context isn't given by another assignment:
If you can't have a list in a scalar context, how can you have the assignment of a list in scalar context? You have even said in this thread that lists don't even exist.
To pick your own nit, perhaps you meant "the result of the list assignment operator upon assigning a series of scalars to an empty series of scalars".
It's very difficult for there to be a list assignment in scalar context there if lists don't exist. What does a "list assignment" assign? It's also very difficult to support the idea that lists don't exist when you show the code that returns multiple scalars ("atoms" and references to other complex structures) in order (a "list") in LIST context with variables named 'lelem' and similar. The "elem" part of those clearly stands for "element". Elements of what?
You can argue that there is another, clearer concept to use to understand this topic. It's very difficult to support the idea that the concept used in the documentation, the source code, the tutorials, and the in concepts and culture of other programming languages from which Perl borrows ideas does not exist in Perl, though. Call it flawed if you like, but saying it doesn't exist is inaccurate.