I agree about 90% with JF, my disagreement being that the level of identification of the spin mode (particularly direction) that John has, and so-far I've always managed to demonstrate, may not be shared by every PPL - particularly given the modern refusal to teach spinning.
For that reason, when certifying a new non-aerobatic type (which I do a couple of times a year) I always look first for a controls centralised recovery. If I get a 100% success rate from that (pretty much guaranteed in anything with cruciform tail for example), I'll always aim to publish that as the recommended recovery for that type, for the following reasons:-
(1) It doesn't require enough ability to identify which way the aircraft is spinning.
(2) It can be performed in the incipient spin, whereas the convention that John has described requires the spin to be developed enough to identify the spin direction.
Expanding on (2) slightly, the RAF has always taught a "loss of control" drill preceding the spin recovery drill - that loss of control drill is what I always hope will be an acceptable spin recovery. Civil GA teaching is to perform a full spin recovery once the spin mode is identifiable. In my opinion this leads to unnecessary loss of height when recovering from an inadvertent spin.
G
Note 1: For the benefit of instructors, on most light aircraft all the primary controls are reversible, but trimmers are generally irreversible - that is you can waggle it out on the airframe all you like and nothing happens in the cockpit.
Note 2: By co-incidence, I've just read this whilst taking a break from writing a section on stalling and spinning of small aeroplanes in what I hope will eventually become my PhD thesis. I believe that in the trade, this is known as "Doing a Darrol".