My short answer:
1. For various reasons discussed on the other thread, I'm persuaded that Britain stays neutral at least until 1915, while pretty much financing the French and Russian efforts. On the Western Front, the British army really was not much of a factor until 1916 and the blockade took awhile to get going, though no blockade will increasingly be a factor. But there are big diplomatic butterflies, the USA is not as tilted towards the Entente, Japan stays neutral and so likely do both Italy and Turkey.
2. Russia is not as screwed as you think because they benefit from more British and French assistance, plus there was alot of slack in their war effort that could be drawn on if they are the main theater, and if Turkey remains neutral much of the Caucasus army is available to plug gaps in their frontlines. Plus butterflies could lead to a better operational management of their armies.
3. More German forces on the Eastern Front helps Austria-Hungary, even better if Italy stays neutral. At a minimum they don't lose Prmyzl.
4. France doesn't lose the industrial areas around Lille and has a narrow front to work with. They try to push through Lorraine but by early 1915 they realize they need a Plan B. I think the likeliest Plan B is the IOTL plan to send forces to the Balkans to help the Serbs, but at least five months earlier and on a bigger scale, where they might be effective.
5. Germany keeps at least Taganikya and Sudwest Afrika, but with a neutral Japan the Far East gets interesting with the German cruiser squadron lose, and no Japanese or Australian forces to counter it. Russia might try to do something about Tsingtao but that would draw forces from the west and nullify much of the benefit they get by Turkey remaining neutral.
If the British can come up with some sort of casus belli to declare war on Germany in 1915 or early 1916 the war gets back on its OTL track and the Central Powers in fact are screwed by not having seized that strategic territory in Belgium and northern France. Otherwise the British are able to arrange for a peace in early 1916 that allows the Central Powers to make their point over Serbia and get a puppet Polish state, but not much else and Germany probably has to give up a couple of its colonies. In that case the war is a bigger, bloodier iteration of the various nineteenth century wars, but not World War I. This scenarios is almost closer to a "no war" scenario than the OTL World War I in terms of butterflies.
(1) I can certainly find enough support to agree with you and not feel I am flying with the bats. One must factor in the situation in Ireland and a likely election in 1915 before one commits to a belligerent Britain. Because I am not convinced this results in a slam dunk victory the pressure for Britain to intervene is quite wonky, my better bet would be some blow up in the Dardanelles, Greece or elsewhere to draw in a classic British effort on the fringes. With no blockade the CPs are in far better shape to prepare for total war and sustain it, I would guess they can be ready for a belligerent Britain by 1916 and be far less hurt by a later blockade, being able to outlast it really.
(2) And again I would tend to agree. Russia is actually rather impossible to defeat, we might see near as much territory loss we call B-L occurring by 1916 or 1917, and we likely see a fall of Nicholas, but Russia will survive. Once Poland, the Baltics, Finland and Ukraine are peeled away Germany and A-H have too little ability to swallow more. But I am doubtful it gets that far, Russia can effect a strong defense and stagnate the East, Germany must deal with France and A-H is entangled in Serbia, as mighty as Germany is she cannot in fact conquer the world.
(3) This should be quite the A-H wank really. Poland gets on a path to independence and Italy should be hovering neutral, likely never to join the war.
(4) France is in far better shape to sustain her own war effort, less dependent upon the British or Americans, they will bleed white but once they go on the defensive France is a hard nut to crack. My bet is Britain brokers a peace before Germany can mount the offensive needed to break France.
(5) As long as Britain is non-belligerent I would assume Germany retains her colonies, any lost are returned, maybe some other dribs and dabs change hands, but Britain will want no real alterations in the rest of the world. Germany should retain Tsingtao and might find Japan wanting to align against Russia and not as faithful to Britain. Asia may look rather different.
I would disagree that not seizing Belgium hurts Germany, even not holding Northern France is not that serious, OTL her allies made up the difference, here she does it herself, I will chalk it up as a zero. If we see no brokered peace in 1915, the strain of war should be enough by end of 1916 to see peace looming popular. I have no doubts that Russia is still screwed, France is no longer a true great power and Germany emerges as the peer player, A-H survives as the continental number two, the British are far less the first among equals yet far from as broke or weakened as OTL. The USA is not poised to become a super power, the world will be bipolar for a long time, Britain and Germany, two not actually super powers and more oddly equal, a precarious but better balance of power.