The precise definition of "recession" seems to be topical in Canada right now. (I know this because my daughter phoned to ask me the definition.) It's a mug's game. I won't play. (Do geographers waste their time arguing about the precise definition of "mountain"?)
I hear that the "technical" definition of "recession" is two consecutive quarters of (real) GDP growth below zero. But what the hell is the meaning of "technical" in this context? I only learned that "technical" definition by reading newspapers, not by reading economists. If I want the "technical" definition of "horsepower" I will ask an automotive engineer, and I figure I will get a more precise and accurate answer that will be useful if I want to compare two cars' engines. Well, the so-called "technical" definition of recession is certainly precise, but it's neither accurate nor useful.
What's so special about two quarters? What's so special about zero? What's so special about GDP? Precisely nothing.
There is absolutely nothing "technical" about the "technical" definition of recession. It's an arbitrary definition of recession, not a technical definition of recession.