My general and broadly brushed thinking in any end to the war that is not a loss for Germany would be that you need the USA to hold its neutrality and circumstances force Germany to negotiate from a position of superiority yet certainty that it is about to crumble, they have urgency to negotiate. In all but a rare scenario the Russians are imploding by end of 1916 into 1917 and France cannot simply hold out forever, but it has way more skin in the game than the UK who can negotiate before things are too serious. The key is Britain's perception of how to backstop the Germans before they can force a victory. That is the start line for almost every scenario.
First, I would assume some slightly better showing by the HSF that entices them from USW, using submarines to offensively mine British waters and seek out warships is a plausible one, so you need a Jutland style cock up by Beatty losing his force before Jellicoe and the GF can save it. That should keep the Anglo-American relationship tense and potentially allow Germany just enough neutral trade to further deter USW. That eases British problems too. Second, I would have Italy stay on the fence but allow the Ottomans to join the CPs, this further keeps Germany away from USW, helping both itself and the UK. This should keep Romania out of the war but it still allows a "second" front in Greece that is a drain on A-H and Germany too. It sounds like you are wanking the CP but I think not. Here the resources Britain sank into Italy balance her books better, as I will explain both the French and British should have some added troops to pour into the "underbelly" and the Ottomans more deeply drain from Germany, keeping A-H healthy enough to moderate German "victory" disease, putting Russia more fairly on the escape path, and in this hopefully avoiding the H-L dictatorship. Third, I would have a CP/Russia peace deal earlier than B-L, as late as 1916 Russia has truly only lost Poland, a prize Germany does not want, and any armistice is a mixed bag for any Russian civilian government. My suspicion is that it leads to a military coup and renewed offensive that keeps Germany from exploiting the second wind for the West, so you get a B-L like map with Russia doing it to itself, easier for the Anglo-French to swallow as Russia then goes into civil war mode with Germany trapped in the East dealing with chaos.
Britain cannot be defeated by Germany, but by 1916 the funds are getting thin and domestic issues are rising, if Germany can conquer France then Britain is in trouble, so I think Britain will seek a peace long before Germany can exploit some yet next unknown twist in the plot. That hurts relations with France, but I think they are mostly shit anyway. Here I prefer the Germany went East and did not initially invade Belgium scenario, as I think war has still overwhelmed Belgium, but Britain has been fighting a sort of parallel war in Belgium, France has not lost so much territory and is far less dependent actually, able to hold out better and has likely just as foolishly demoralized its armies in endless offensives versus the more defensive Germans holding closer to the pre-war frontiers. I think that gets a stalemated war inside a war that ultimately looks very much like OTL.
The reality is that Germany needs a free market global trade world to thrive, East European clients, more African colonies, all those things only look good to short-sighted men, of which there is plenty to botch the peace, sharing East Europe with A-H is actually a win, never getting MittelAfrika is a win, but we know these red herrings will drag over the stumble to peace. The reality is that France is not a Great Power and Russia will be long in regaining any status, but it a threat in the future still. Effectively a cold war scenario in the West. As above Germany holds not enough of France to force things, but France could break so Britain wants Germany to not get in position to overrun her, Germany can be given her colonies to appease her, Belgium here is destroyed equally by both sides, so I think we have a very uneasy staged withdraw and demilitarization. Japan has overstepped its bounds in the 21 Demands so the British may not go to bat for her, but Germany can do little to her now. Britain has most of the cards to negotiate a peace but has not enough power to force Germany, the blockade is leaky enough and I think if H-L do not cock up the economy they actually suffer far less from it.
The biggest danger is that Germany actually gets to shop in Russia, I think that is a non starter here. So Germany is at the table, it will concede a lot to get back to business. Britain wants to contain German power, it can do that. I think you get a naval treaty settling the position of Germany, keeping her playing and getting her colonies to her are chains of gold. France has no means to get more than it gets, as soon as an armistice is announced its offensive power goes from weak to none. A-H is still hoping to survive. Ironically I think the Anglo-French still try to carve the Ottomans, not enough Germany can do to stop it, but I think it seriously backfires. Just as intervention in the RCW is a tar baby. Here is how I give some real bones to the Germans, they fail to get into the RCW as they must try to fight in the West, likely siding with the Bolsheviks yet, the British alienate everyone in the Middle East, the USA sits pissed about neutral rights and now sees a renewed imperialism, that opens the USA to trade where the Empire can close to Germany, Japan has alienated the UK and irked the USA, we have a long game open to Germany to dig out of the war with Britain sitting at the top of the burnt pile. France still hates Germany and Germany might need to knock her out again, Russia is the same mess and threat, war between her and anyone is not ruled out. The USA has a more mercantile path to global dominance. Not what you asked but I think I can get you much of the outcomes, only the paths forward are twisted up. If you really want you can still have wars, failures, decolonialization, the 20th Century as a mixed bag of crap.