← Back to Platform Platform · Lookups

Pick a record.
Get a record.

lookup queries a list asset — a CSV, JSON list, or REST endpoint — and returns a structured record with any number of named fields. Five variants cover ZIP screenouts, state → region pipes, employee directories, make → model cascades, and silent target-list validation.

Fieldbase platform · 5 variants

Where lookups actually show up

In practice, lookups cover the parts of a questionnaire that can't live inside the survey file — the lists are either proprietary and client-supplied (targeting ZIPs for a geographically-scoped study, approved NPIs for a physician panel, qualifying employee IDs for a B2B wave, valid product serial numbers for an owner-only recruit) or they're simply too large and too structured to hand-code into a single question — ICD-10 codes, medical device catalogues, vehicle makes and models, global SKU lists, geographic hierarchies.

Upload the list. Reference it in one line.

The alternative — pasting every make, every model, every ICD-10 code into the YAML as a static option list, then wiring the dependencies between them by hand — is the classic survey-programming time-sink. It's slow, it's error-prone, and the list goes stale the moment the client adds a new SKU. With a lookup, the authoring team uploads the CSV (or points at the client's REST endpoint) and references it in one line:

source: lists.fieldbase.com/lookup/vehicle_makes_models

Three hundred makes and five thousand models become one cascading question. When the client sends an updated list, you replace the asset — the survey doesn't need to be re-coded.

The list stays on the server

Every variant resolves server-side. The respondent's browser never downloads the asset — a proprietary ZIP target list, a confidential employee directory, or a client's wholesale SKU catalogue is never exposed in a view-source, a dev-tools network tab, or an export of the page. For corporate and regulated research teams working under NDA with their clients' data, that's not a nice-to-have — it's the only way the list is allowed anywhere near the fieldwork platform. The matchOnly variant goes a step further: the respondent doesn't even see whether there's a list, so a targeted ZIP study can't be reverse-engineered into a fraud vector.