Background: Although acupuncture is a highly effective treatment for pain management, it suffers from lack of reproducibility of results. One of the many variables involved in achieving reproducible clinical results is the specificity of an anatomical structure being stimulated. Lack of target specificity obscures scientific understanding of how acupuncture works, leading to skepticism about the efficacy of acupuncture within the medical community and prejudice regarding the wisdom imparted through classical acupuncture texts. Objectives: The goals of this study were to test the hypothesis that classical acupoint locations described in the classics have a strong foundation in neuroanatomy and to promote a consensus among practitioners about neuroanatomy-based acupuncture. Methods: Acupoint locations for TE 1-TE 10 described in the Systematic Classic were transliterated, and each acupoint neuroanatomical target was determined by literature review, dissection, and/or electrical stimulation. An objective comparison was made between classical acupoint location and acupoint descriptions in a contemporary Chinese acupuncture textbook. Results: Classical acupoints TE 1-TE 10 had specific neuroanatomical targets. Neuroanatomical differences of the TE acupoints were found between classical and contemporary descriptions. Of the ten contemporary acupoints, 60% of targets were ambiguous (TE 1 and TE 5-TE 9) while 40% (TE 2-TE 4, and TE10) missed the corroborated neuroanatomical targets completely. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that each acupoint between TE1 and TE10 targets a distinct nerve and/or muscle enabling the achievement of feedback of highly distinct tissue stimulation, without any target redundancy. The transmission of erroneous and ambiguous anatomical targets found in contemporary texts highlights the urgency in advancing a science-based approach to study the neuroanatomical intents of other acupoints.