Woah! Way too much water, unless you’re cooking a whole sheetpan of the suckers. (Hmmm…I wonder if you could do a whole buncha frozen potstickers at once in the oven…)
I love frozen potstickers.
This is really funny 
I couldn’t imagine those instructions were actually worthwhile.
1 cup of water does sound like way too much. But I’d thaw them first, or maybe the idea was to pour off most of the water before they were done. I don’t know because I’ve never made them myself, frozen or otherwise. My instinct would be to steam them first to thaw them using a bamboo basket or one of those colander like things (if you can afford one 
), then fry them quickly. I’d probably brown them on all sides like I’ve had at some restaurants.
I think we all need to run out to the store tomorrow and buy these, follow the directions as to amount and see what happens and report back in! And have a yummy dinner!
I am so freakin’ hungry right now… what brand are we talking about, as a control?
“Cook 8 minutes or until water evaporates”:
If water evaporates first, it means “Cook 8 minutes or until water evaporates, whichever comes first”
But if 8 minutes comes first, then does it mean “Cook 8 minutes or until water evaporates, whichever comes last” ?? Or do you stop at 8 minutes?
It may help if you, like myself, are totally incapable of cooking or following directions worth a damn, whereupon you cook until you think it might be edible, then taste. If edible, stop. If not edible, continue. If burnt beyond palatability, consider it a teachable moment and try again another day. 
I don’t read it that way at all.
“Cook covered for eight minutes or until water evaporates” means (to me) "Cook covered for eight minutes unless the water evaporates, in which case, stop cooking and move on to the next direction.
“Cook covered for eight minutes until water evaporates” means (to me) “Cook covered until the water evaporates, we found it took eight minutes.”
Don’t know the answer to OP’s question but I recall, working in computer industry, there was a rule that Installation Instructions should (almost) never use the words “or” or “if.” 
Now I understand more why some people have so much trouble getting recipes to work out correctly. It never occurred to me to be confused by something like this. The goal is getting the water to evaporate, not the eight minutes. If you stop at precisely eight minutes and still have a ton of water in there (because you had the heat too low) your potstickers will possibly not turn out as you would like them to.
So why use ‘or’? To me, it would make much more sense to use the second sentence I wrote, i.e. leave out the word ‘or’ completely.
Absolutely! How could we reword it to be more clear, but not ugly to read?
“Cover and simmer until the water has evaporated. In tests, this took us an average of 8 minutes,” perhaps?
Hmmm…that sounds familiar. It’s actually how Cook’s Illustrated writes their “Why This Works” portion of recipes.
This made no sense to the pedant in me. Then I read the OP’s sentence to my wife, who cooks like nobody’s business and reads cookbooks like other people read fiction, and she said basically word-for-word what kittenblue said.
I agree. Maybe something like “cook until water is evaporated, about 8 minutes.” That is how some recipes are written. The most instructive recipes have directions like this:
Now, this Alton Brown recipe has come up in another thread, with one poster complaining that when she pulled the pot roast, it was still tough. It has the instructions written as:
With pot roast, it is that latter condition that you’re looking for. The timing is irrelevant. When I made that recipe, it took nearly 5 hours at 200 to get it fork tender. If you’re using the correct cuts of beef (like chuck), it will get soft as the collagen renders, but it’s not an exact science.
Now, why people write instructions in such an ambiguous manner that you do need to have some cooking experience under your belt to know what to do, I don’t know.
in my experience, when you are adept at a certain task, it can be difficult to “go back” and think about how to most effectively explain it to an inexperienced person.
Oh, come on, now! Not every recipe can or should be written for the absolute beginner. It’s the same with sewing instructions, or knitting instructions, or, I would hazard, woodworking instructions…at a certain point, you assume your audience has the basic experience necessary, and the basic skills. If you want recipes written for beginners that hold your hand through the process, there are plenty of cookbooks that will do that. But basic instructions on a package will assume that you know the end result that you are trying to achieve (dry potstickers, in this case, as opposed to potsticker soup) and can logic your way out of it without getting hung up on every word. There’s only so much room on the package, folks! And, it was hardly ambiguous. It’s just worded differently than you expected, perhaps because you are new to cooking. See above. Lather, rinse, repeat.
So, how did they turn out?
Come on, now, indeed. I’m an experienced cook and I agree with others that that type of wording is ambiguous, even though I know how to read it and what it means. Is it really that much more verbose to say “Cook until water is evaporated, about 8 minutes”?
I agree as far as cookbooks go. There are some bad instructions, but mainly the problem is a lack of experience by the cook. Recipe books aren’t traditionally written for beginners, that’s a new trend, and it makes for a short book. My Mary Margaret McBride Encyclopedia of Cooking is already 6 inches thick, and has at least 1000 recipes in it. It would be a dozen 6 inch thick volumes with the level of instructions necessary for a novice cook. And I can tell you woodworking instructions are even scantier than the typical recipe.
But packaged products usually have plenty of room on the excess packaging to put very detailed instructions on, and their intended audience is usually people with minimal cooking experience.
That only goes so far though. If someone is missing the basic skills, it’s impossible to give them sufficient instructions. You have to know how to brown something without burning it. You have to know what fork tender is because you can force a fork into something long before it’s tender. There’s an endless set of skills that can only be developed with experience.
I don’t know exactly how to say this next part without starting a holy war, but it’s basically this; anyone can learn how to make something hotter. But cooking good food is an art and science that requires experience and talent. A recipe does not a sumptious dish make. Just because you’ve mastered some other complex skill, it does not mean you can cook well simply by following instructions.
Okay okay okay. The example in the OP probably doesn’t show just how annoyingly enigmatic recipes can be. This one might do that better:
[QUOTE=Trader Joe’s Cinnamon Crumb coffee cake mix]
Butter & lightly flour a 9" square or 9" round cake pan or 8" square or 8" round cake pan.
[/quote]
Fuck you Trader Joe. Which one is it? Make up your mind.
You picked a case where ‘or’ is used exactly right. Any of those pans will do.
I hope you were being sarcastic.
Sure, real cooking requires not being beholden to a recipe, but if a recipe does not produce what it claims to produce, then it is a bad recipe.
And as for potlickers–if you knew enough to know how to handle the water, then you’d know enough to cook them without directions. Only a non-cook is ever going to read the directions, so they need to be as accurate as possible. If an expert outside your field told you to do X, would you not go ahead and do X, even if it seemed counter-intuitive?
Only half-way. How am I to decide whether to use 8" or 9"? It doesn’t give me any basis upon which to choose.
Come on, use some common sense. You want thinner? Use the 9" pan. You want thicker coffe cake, use the 8" pan.