[Bug]: Incorrect SSA form with break

### Describe the issue:

The SSA form returns `s_3` and `p_3` instead of `s_2` and `p_2` which are correctly returned if the break is removed.

### Code example to reproduce the issue:

```solidity
contract T {
function a(uint n) public returns(uint,uint){
uint s = 0;
uint p = 0;

for (uint i; i < n; i++) {
s += i;
p *= i;
if (i == 3) { break; }
}
return (s, p);
}
}
```

### Version:

0.10.3

### Relevant log output:

```shell
Function T.a(uint256)
Expression: s = 0
IRs:
s_1(uint256) := 0(uint256)
Expression: p = 0
IRs:
p_1(uint256) := 0(uint256)
Expression: i < n
IRs:
s_2(uint256) := ϕ(['s_3', 's_1'])
p_2(uint256) := ϕ(['p_1', 'p_3'])
i_1(uint256) := ϕ(['i_0', 'i_2'])
TMP_0(bool) = i_1 < n_1
CONDITION TMP_0
Expression: s += i
IRs:
s_3(uint256) = s_2 (c)+ i_1
Expression: p *= i
IRs:
p_3(uint256) = p_2 (c)* i_1
Expression: i == 3
IRs:
TMP_1(bool) = i_1 == 3
CONDITION TMP_1
Expression: i ++
IRs:
TMP_2(uint256) := i_1(uint256)
i_2(uint256) = i_1 (c)+ 1
Expression: (s,p)
IRs:
RETURN s_3,p_3
```

Start with the supplied Solidity contract and compare the SSA output with and without the break statement. Trace how loop exits and variable versions are represented, then verify that the return expression uses s_2 and p_2 for the break path and add coverage for this reproducer if the project’s existing tests support it.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.