Obviously those figures can only be a guideline. There's a good measure of subjectivity to pasta cooking, but most likely the package directions are not totally random, and you should be getting pretty close to a good state if you were following them to the letter. Still, the real method to tell whether your pasta is cooked is to taste it, not time it.
But more importantly, can I guess that you're an American? Barilla pasta is Italian, and I'm pretty sure they'd give you figures that'd lead to pasta properly cooked by Italian standards, ie 'al dente', which means literally that there is still some bite to it. I've never really had any pasta cooked that way in any US establishment, the standard is.. mush :-). So if you think 'tender' is the only standard for properly cooked pasta, I invite you to try the Italian way and see whether that in fact might be a better state to aim for. You could start by cutting the time difference in half, and see for yourself that the pasta is still quite edible when it's not completely soft? And then work back to the suggested time, testing at each stage.
Another factor that re-inforces this wrong-headed US standard is that good Italian pasta is made from durum-wheat flour, a much harder variety of wheat than what is generally available in the US. That flour means that the pasta cooks evenly, first it's raw, then it's a bit hard, then it's perfect, then it's getting overcooked, and only (50% in your case) later does it reach that US-favored mush stage, possibly not even ever. But soft American flour doesn't just reach a much softer final state, it reaches it instantly. Which means you go from raw to overcooked in a blink, it's exceedingly difficult to catch it at the right stage of 'al dente'. That is probably the main reason why this mushy US standard has developed to that degree, people have never had the right thing to learn with. So Thomas, do stick with the Barilla while you figure this out...