the native americans mightve got a better deal in the americas...but part from that dont think much wouldve changed with the exception of some small teritorial concessions
The obvious ones for each theatre are to kill off Wolfe for Canada and Clive for India, replacing them with lesser talents. Or perhaps a string of PODs in naval victories to get a successful invasion of Britan and have London begging for peace, trading in her colonial gains. The latter can also end subsidies for Prussia, causing a sooner collapse there. That said, the British navy was just better trained than the France one, so it'd be against the odds, but a few dice rolls in their favour and you can do it.
I am quite ignorant of the dynamics at work in Europe. I'd think that the colonial situation post-war would have only limited relation to the actual outcomes in the theatres, being horsetraded quite cavalierly at European negotiation tables based mainly on the outcomes there.
A caveat; I'd think even a badly beaten Britain would not trade over any significantly settled colonial territory to the French in the Americas. Of course OTL the British did acquire all of New France, francophone settlers and all. That was in part because the situation on the ground in North America matched that of Europe; had New France won big at least in a defensive sense, routing British invaders, I daresay even a defeated-in-Europe France might have been able to hold out for retaining its core on the Saint-Lawrence, perhaps with some kind of disarmament, inspection, territorial limitation concessions allowing them just enough self-defensive force to make them hard to gobble up but reduced in terms of threat potential.
Vice versa if the New French and Native allies got trounced in detail but France came out triumphant in Europe, it would be back to status quo ante; the British North Americans could perhaps hang on to gains they'd actually garrisoned and started settling, and maybe the territory of any Native allies they'd secured, but the French would still have their heartlands in full plus whatever was still up in the air in terms of nebulous claims.
If we have the New French standing firm and winding up on the winning side in Europe, their claims could be a bit more sweeping, removing any very recent Anglo settlers and extending claims over even Native groups hostile to them. I still don't think they could turn the tables on OTL 1763 and be made a gift of all, or even much of, British North America. They might be able to uproot some of the Maritimes and get Acadia back. They certainly might be able to draw very firm and restrictive Appalachian western borders, and it might even be worth their while to establish forts and patrols and guns for the Indians to hold that line firm. But wherever the British had already established towns east of the mountains, they'd be left there. Possibly again with treaty limits on how much the British Crown could arm them and even restrictions on how much of a militia the colonies would be permitted to raise. But they would not be horsetraded to the King of France. Not unless said King's forces
in America had been so successful as to break all the English forces and occupy the places all the way to the Atlantic coast, all down the coastline.
Which given the disparity in basic demographics would be ASB! New France "doing well" probably amounts to repelling all raids on Francophone settlements and their Indian allies avoiding getting decimated.
But it's entirely possible the BNA Regular and Militia forces do win, or at any rate do well, in NA and yet get deprived of their wins in the final treaty.
Same thing I expect in India, only more so; conceivably the French get totally wiped out there and BEIC wins the day, and yet has to hand it back (and more!) to a new French infrastructure sent over for the purpose at the stroke of a European pen. In India I expect there would be no English or French "heartlands of settlement" recognized at all, the whole thing is up for grabs. I suppose if John Company does well there, they'd get to keep some token something, but no more, if it is Louis lording it over George back Home.