Atonement is a Christian term of art, and a reference work has to decide what to do with the traditions that do not use it. The decision taken here is to say where the question is not asked, rather than to find something in each tradition that can be made to look like an answer.
Judaism has the vocabulary and not the mechanism. The root behind kapparah is the priestly system's own, Yom Kippur is built on it, and the offerings while the Temple stood were part of how atonement was obtained. What is absent is any account in which one party bears a penalty on behalf of another. When the Temple fell the offerings ended, and the rabbinic sources treat repentance, prayer and acts of loving kindness as taking their place, without concluding that atonement had become unavailable. A tradition that read the same sacrificial texts and did not arrive at a substitutionary death is a fact worth stating plainly.
Islam has expiation and rejects the framework. Kaffara is a defined act discharging a defined liability, and Islamic law specifies both. But the Quran states in several places that no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another, and holds that God forgives the person who repents without any mediator. Comparative writing that files kaffara under atonement is matching a word rather than a question.
The dharmic traditions raise a different problem, and forcing a parallel here does the most damage. Where the frame is karma and rebirth, a wrong is not primarily an offence requiring satisfaction but an action with consequences, and consequence is not in general transferable. Hindu law books prescribe prayaschitta, expiatory acts for named faults, and Buddhist monastic practice includes regular confession that restores standing in the community; both are real and neither is an atonement theory, because neither is answering how a single event changes the standing of everyone. The transfer of merit does exist in Buddhist practice and is itself debated within the tradition, and reaching for it as the dharmic equivalent of substitution reads it through a foreign question.
The atlas therefore holds the atonement theories as Christian positions, records the Jewish and Islamic material under its own names, and states that in the dharmic traditions the category does not arise rather than manufacturing an entry for it.