Inductive vs projective limit of sequence of split surjections

Let $$A_1\twoheadrightarrow A_2\twoheadrightarrow A_3\twoheadrightarrow A_4\twoheadrightarrow \cdots$$ be an inductive sequence of countable abelian groups, the connecting homomorphisms of which are surjective and split, that is, we have embeddings $A_{n+1}\rightarrowtail A_n$ such that the composition $A_{n+1}\rightarrowtail A_n\twoheadrightarrow A_{n+1}$ is the identity for every $n$. This means that $A_{n+1}$ is a direct summand of $A_n$.

Let $\varinjlim A_n$ denote the inductive limit of the system $$A_1\twoheadrightarrow A_2\twoheadrightarrow A_3\twoheadrightarrow A_4\twoheadrightarrow \cdots$$ and let $\varprojlim A_n$ denote the projective limit of the system $$A_1\leftarrowtail A_2\leftarrowtail A_3\leftarrowtail A_4\leftarrowtail \cdots.$$ We get an induced map $$\varprojlim A_n\to\varinjlim A_n.$$ As Zhen Lin has shown in over here, this map need not be surjective. Here is a weaker question:

Question: If we have $\varinjlim A_n=0$, then can we conclude that $\varprojlim A_n=0$?

This would, of course, follow if the map $\varprojlim A_n\to\varinjlim A_n$ was always injective. Is there any reason to expect this?

[Earlier versions of this question were posted here and here on MSE.]

I think it's true that $\varprojlim A_n\to\varinjlim A_n$ is always injective.
$A_1\leftarrowtail A_2\leftarrowtail A_3\leftarrowtail A_4\leftarrowtail \cdots$
is a sequence of inclusions of nested subgroups, so $\varprojlim A_n$ is just the intersection. An element of the kernel of $\varprojlim A_n\to\varinjlim A_n$ is just an element $a$ of $\bigcap A_n$ that is in the kernel of the map $A_1\twoheadrightarrow A_k$ for some $k$. But this implies $a=0$ since this map is a splitting of the inclusion $A_k\rightarrowtail A_1$.