In my attempts to solve the problem of the OP, I found it useful to choose a slightly broader perspective. I started by defining a function $f(x)$ in which an adjustable parameter $a$ appears:
$$f(x) = (x + a)log(x+a) - (x+2a)log(x)$$
In terms of parameter $a$, we seek the value of $x$ for which $f(x)$ equals zero. Later on we will focus on the case $a=1$.
There exist rational solutions for $x$ and $a$ whenever $x = n a$, where $n$ is a natural number. Here are the first four of these solutions:
$ \{n = 1, x=4, a=4 \}$; $ \{n = 2, x= 27/8, a = 27/16 \}$; $ \{n=3, x = 256/81, a=256/243 \}$; $ \{n=4, x=3125/1024, a = 3125/4096 \}$. Note that the solution for $n=3$ is close to the values occurring in the OP's problem: $x= \pi$, $a=1$.
We now seek the general solution for the case that $a << x$. Expanding the $ log(x+a)$ term in $f(x)$, dividing by $a$ and rearranging terms leads to:
$$log(x) = 1 + \frac {1}{2}(a/x) - \frac {1}{6}(a/x)^2 + \frac {1}{12}(a/x)^3 - \frac{1}{20}(a/x)^4 + \frac {1}{30}(a/x)^5 - \cdots$$
To get rid of the remaining logarithmic term, we substitute both sides of the equation in the exponential function. Next we divide by $e$. Then we take the reciprocal of both sides. This yields:
$$z = exp \{- \frac {1}{2}pz + \frac {1}{6}(pz)^2 - \frac {1}{12}(pz)^3 + \frac {1}{20}(pz)^4 - \frac {1}{30}(pz)^5 + \cdots \}$$
Where we have introduced the new variable $z = e/x$ and the new parameter $p = a/e$. Expanding the RHS in a Taylor series yields:
$$z = 1 - \frac {1}{2}(pz) + \frac {7}{24} (pz)^2 - \frac {3}{16} (pz)^3 + \frac {743}{5760}(pz)^4 - \frac {215}{2304}(pz)^5 + \cdots$$
From this result we obtain the power series for $z$ in terms of $p$:
$$z = 1 - \frac {1}{2}p + \frac {13}{24}p^2 - \frac {3}{4}p^3 + \frac {6763}{5760}p^4 - \frac {285}{144}p^5 + \cdots$$
Converting this result for $z$ into a series for $x$ gives:
$$x/e = 1 + \frac {1}{2}(a/e) - \frac {7}{24}(a/e)^2 + \frac {1}{3}(a/e)^3 - \frac {911}{1920}(a/e)^4 + \frac {34}{45}(a/e)^5 - \frac {748045}{580608}(a/e)^6 + \cdots$$
For small values of $(a/e)$ the series converges well, since consecutive terms alternate in sign while the pre-factors are roughly similar in magnitude. Unfortunately for the case $a=1$ we do not get the high accuracy that is required to answer the OP's question with certainty.
I chose a simple method to improve the convergence. As pointed out above, there is an rational solution to $x(a)$ quite near $a=1$, namely $x =256/81, a = 256/243$. We can simply add an extra term of order $(n+1)$ to an approximation of order $n$, in order to force the solution through this exact value. If I do this, the results are: $x0 = 3.1380$, $x1 = 3.1421$, $x2 = 3.1405$, $x3 = 3.1413$, $x4 = 3.1409$, $x5 = 3.1411$, $x6 = 3.1410$. From this set of values we can conclude that the zero of $f(x)$ occurs very near the value $x = 3.1410$. The uncertainty is smaller than $0.0001$.
A different approach is to express the series in a Padé form. This is an elegant and effective method to improve convergence of a series. The $4$-parameter Padé representation for $x$ is:
$$x/e = \frac {1 + (A+B+C+D)(a/e) + (AC+AD+BD)(a/e)^2}{1 + (B+C+D)(a/e) +
BD(a/e)^2} $$
The parameter values are found to be: $A = 1/2$, $B = 7/12$, $C = 47/84$ , $D = 11313/19740$. To enhance the formula further, we adjust the least significant parameter (which is $D$) so that the formula satisfies the exact solution $x = 256/81$ when $a = 256/243$. The new value for $D$ is $0.48387$, which is somewhat smaller than the original value $0.57310$. The formula works very well for all $a$ in the range $0$ to $1.05$. For $a=1$ we obtain the result $x = 3.14105$ with an accuracy of $0.00001$.
In conclusion: for $a=1$ the solution to $f(x) = 0$ occurs for a value of $x$ which is smaller than $\pi = 3.14159$. Hence the function $f(x)$ is negative for $a=1$ and $x= \pi$.