I will try and resolve this comment in my upcoming PR. I think we should just check for a `BackingField` and return it here.

Originally posted by @RikkiGibson in #75116 (comment)

Code being referenced:

It feels like this is another piece of our attempts to correctly substitute the field for the property and vice-versa when initializing/reading/managing flow state, and this check/branch can probably be consolidated into another area. But it doesn't appear to be urgent or impacting correctness.