@Westphalian you could also have Orsini succeed and kill the Emperor, who was the main supporter of France's Italian policies.
@Neoteros I know, Cattaneo wrote that L-V had an eight of the empire's populace and contributed for a third to its finances (not sure how accurate that is, but it's certainly an indication of the relative prosperity of L-V).
On the other hand Austrian administration, especially the military one after 1848 was stifling economic growth: just compare the building of railways on Piedmont and Lombardy between 48 and 59, so I would argue that Austria could have better managed those lands.
Politically, I am not that sure that the lower class were completely excluded from it: the first weeks of the 1848 showed a remarkable degree of participation even in the countryside and by the lower clergy, while statistics for the casualties in the 5 days of Milan show an ample participation by urban working class. Obviously farmers were generally conservative and loved stability and the Austrians could therefore generally count on them so you have a point. I meant that I am not sure that Austria could go on and suppress the productive elites of L-V without expecting some sort of backlash.
The first lost war or moment of weakness would mean Savoy snatching Lombardy. To survive into the xx century Austria needs to implement deep reforms in the second half of the xix century (emperor Max could be better than Franz Josef for this) and, before that, grant to L-V at least the degree of autonomy that Milan had in the xviii century when they create the kingdom after the Congress of Vienna.
Aland and Alto Adige are very small parts of their countries and enjoy wide ranging autonomies in democratic countries (to a degree imo unthinkable in the xix century), not an apt comparison with Habsburg ruled Northern Italy: it would be more like Poland for the Russian Empire.
Savoy should be made inoffensive too: maybe without Genoa they would be weakened enough not to pose a threat?