This is very true. The artillery modernization/expansion and better economic planning even with the horrible political system the AH's had would have gone a long way to fixing the wartime issues of the Empire. Of course with the internal political issues solved, there would be less of an issue of looking to external violence to solve internal problems, so there might not even be a war with this scenario.
It'd be interesting to see what the situation would have looked like without Galicia being wrecked early in the war, depriving AH of 1/3 of its grain production and 1/2 of its horses, not to mention Hungary exporting its reduced surpluses to Germany throughout the war, despite requiring Austria to release soldiers from the army every harvest to help bring in that grain!
I have toyed with trying to do this POD, but handing the butterflies is more than I want to deal with. The best POD is for A-H to crush the Hungarians in 1905, and then use the remaining 9 years to modify the army. But then we can't get WW1 to start on time. Another good POD is to allow the reforms to finish and start the war about 1919, but then everyone army is much different. With a close to the war POD, Conrad Turns East is probably the easiest one. None of these are appealing to write. I then looked on some type of interdiction of the Russia railroad - Armor cars, airplane, Zeppelin, one way cavalry raids, etc. The technology can be made to work and just blowing 10-15 RR bridges probably messes up the Russian mobilization schedule by weeks or months. And the low tech seems to work the best. You can preposition commandos as a part of the 48-120 hour lead up to war plan. It is not really that hard to burn down a RR bridge with a lot of wood. Or to just use explosives. Or just use cavalry raids since these units can move over 65 miles per day, and I bet a small unit pushing its horse can get close to 200. Now you have to accept it can be a one way trip, but the gain is just so big for what can be lost. Or you can just use airplanes. I found an example of 1916 where a two seated fighter was used to fly in a guy one day. He took at the bridge at night, and was picked up the next day. Evidently organized by the pilot and gunner without support from above. So it clearly can be done, but was not tried as far as I can tell at the start of the war. I concluded it was just too radical a thought process for high level planners. Do you have any idea why it was never seriously consider? After all, the improving Russian mobilization schedule was a concern for the Germans, and it is pretty standard to look for ways to counter new capabilities. So from a perspective of 100 years later, it would make a lot of sense to task a ambitious mid level officer of the General staff to come up with a plan and give him a battalion worth of forces to work on the plan.
Now to how I see the TL flowing in broad terms if we have a much better and somewhat larger A-H army. Or if we just have a 6 week delay in the Russian mobilization plans. I think they would have broadly similar results.
1) The second army would get at least a month, maybe two to break the Serbs. I would expect major gains, with an outside chance of knocking the Serbs out of the war. I think in either case, the Bulgarians jump in once they see Serbia collapsing, so by 1/1/1915, Serbia is effectively finished.
2) If we give a better A-H army, we get a series of battles where the Russians are beating themselves against a A-H army in quality positions. If we do the delay of mobilization, we get the A-H digging in for 6 weeks and adding new men to units (companies get a lot larger). Then the Russians bloody themselves against the the improved A-H army. Much the same result.
3) Come 1915, the A-H army is mostly deployed against the Russians with stable lines. Italy will not enter the war. This is the largest impact, and gives the CP a win. IMO, a neutral Italy means the blockade is looser by at least 100K tons per month of shipping. A-H has at least 12 more divisions available by mid 1915 to use against the Russians, and by 1917 it is probably up to 1 million extra men available.
4) Now Germany can go a lot of different ways, but it fair to say they do somewhat better than OTL in France. Falkenhayn will want to do France first, but taking Poland makes so much sense, even if A-H is doing well to shorten the lines. Germany will send extra troops east, but less than OTL, to secure the Congress of Poland. After this battle, the lines in the East largely stabilize. There will be offensive and counter offensives, but the overall line will not move that much.
5) Gallipoli does not happen, since the German reinforcements (mines, siege artillery, etc) arrive before the UK can land. It is a back door Ottoman buff.
6) By mid 1915, the Congress of Poland is stabilized. A-H is largely garrisoning Poland and will call the shots. It will work better than OTL. Germany will have a lot fewer units in the east, and these will be used in France. The Gallipoli force are also likely in France, and will fair poorly when fighting the Germans. It turns into a long, bloody series of attacks by both sides, where the Germans eventually break the will of the French to fight. Germany may have higher losses than OTL, and France will have much higher. By 1917, I think France is collapsing and a peace deal will be made by the end of the year. Only the USA arriving in the war will have a chance at saving France, and I can see arguments both ways. I could write a TL where the USA gets enough forces to France to save it, and France never attacks again after 1917, and the war drags into 1919. I don't think this is the most likely TL.
7) And with the extra food from Romania and Galicia, A-H survives the war. The 1 million tons of cereal for Romania could well be enough, and I am sure if we add the food from Galicia, it is enough.