@@ -86,6 +86,33 @@ adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/).
   the `dayfirst="auto"` and `semantic_context` routes, which were never
   affected.
 
+- A complex number in an object column no longer crashes cleaning.
+  `fd.clean(pd.DataFrame({"v": [complex(1, 2), "abc", "3"]}))` raised
+  `TypeError: ufunc 'remainder' not supported for the input types` from the
+  numeric finalizer's integrality check (`nonnull % 1 == 0`), and so did a
+  complex value among numeric strings or among Python numbers in an object
+  column (Python `complex`, `numpy.complex128` and `numpy.complex64` alike).
+  Cause: once one cell is complex, `pd.to_numeric` returns a complex result,
+  and it never writes a text, bytes or bool cell into that result — those
+  cells come back as whatever numpy's last freed buffer of the same size held.
+  `"abc"` and `"3"` could read as `0j`, `7+7j` or NaN, so the column passed or
+  failed `numeric_threshold` depending on what had run earlier in the process,
+  and when it passed the finalizer raised. Every numeric target in
+  `steps/dtypes.py` is a real dtype, so a complex value is now treated like
+  any other value the parse cannot interpret: it is masked before parsing, it
+  counts against `numeric_threshold`, and it is never mangled into a real
+  number. When the column still converts, the complex cell is set to missing
+  with its original in `report.coerced_cells`, like a word or a `Fraction` in
+  the same position; when it does not, the column is returned untouched and
+  the type-contamination warning names the row.
+
+  **Compatibility impact:** only columns holding a complex value change, and
+  every such column previously raised (or, depending on process state, came
+  back unchanged). Columns without a complex value parse exactly as before —
+  the extra step runs only when pandas returns a complex result. A column made
+  entirely of complex values is still declined before parsing and keeps its
+  dtype.
+
 
 ### Documentation
 
 
@@ -182,13 +182,36 @@ def _try_boolean(s: pd.Series, nonnull: pd.Series) -> pd.Series | None:
     return converted
 
 
+def _is_complex_cell(value: object) -> bool:
+    return isinstance(value, (complex, np.complexfloating))
+
+
 def _to_numeric_or_none(values: pd.Series) -> pd.Series | None:
     """``to_numeric`` that tolerates non-scalar cells (lists raise even with
-    ``errors="coerce"``)."""
+    ``errors="coerce"``) and treats a complex cell as unparseable."""
     # safe_to_numeric masks cells whose leading exponent can overflow the C int
     # in pandas < 3's parser; every other cell is parsed exactly as pandas does.
     try:
-        return safe_to_numeric(values, errors="coerce")
+        parsed = safe_to_numeric(values, errors="coerce")
+    except (TypeError, ValueError):
+        return None
+    if parsed.dtype.kind != "c":
+        return parsed
+    # pandas returns a complex result only when a cell is complex. Every target
+    # here is a *real* dtype, so a complex value is not a number this step can
+    # hold: it is an unparseable straggler, like any other non-numeric cell --
+    # counted against the threshold, quarantined in coerced_cells if the column
+    # converts, left untouched if it does not. It must be masked *before*
+    # parsing, not filtered out of the complex result: pandas never writes a
+    # text, bytes or bool cell into its complex buffer, so beside a complex
+    # value those cells come back as uninitialised memory ("abc" and "3" as 0j,
+    # or as arbitrary values that differ between identical calls) -- counted as
+    # parsed, then crashing the real-number finalizer.
+    complex_cells = np.fromiter(
+        map(_is_complex_cell, values.to_numpy(dtype=object)), dtype=bool, count=len(values)
+    )
+    try:
+        return safe_to_numeric(values.astype(object).mask(complex_cells), errors="coerce")
     except (TypeError, ValueError):
         return None
 
 
@@ -222,58 +222,56 @@ def test_duplicate_index_labels_no_longer_break_the_formatted_number_rescue():
     assert repeated.data["v"].tolist() == s.tolist()
 
 
-def test_complex_value_beside_text_currently_crashes_the_numeric_finalizer():
-    """Pinned defect — current behaviour, deliberately NOT fixed here.
-
-    ``_finalize_numeric``'s integrality check is ``nonnull % 1 == 0``, and
-    ``complex`` has no ``%``, so a complex value that reaches the finalizer
-    raises ``TypeError`` instead of the column being left alone. A column of
-    complex values *alone* is declined earlier (``infer_dtype`` reports
-    ``"complex"``, which is not a text-ish kind); one complex value beside text
-    makes the column ``"mixed"``, which is how it gets there.
-
-    Asserted against ``_finalize_numeric`` directly rather than through
-    ``fd.clean``. The end-to-end route is **order-dependent**: the same
-    ``fd.clean(...)`` call raises in a fresh process but does not after certain
-    other work has happened in the same process, so an ``fd.clean``-level
-    ``pytest.raises`` here was genuinely flaky under randomised test ordering.
-    The unit-level behaviour is stable, and it is the defect. See
-    ``test_the_end_to_end_route_to_this_crash_is_order_dependent``.
+def test_complex_value_beside_text_no_longer_crashes_the_numeric_finalizer():
+    """Formerly a pinned defect (FD2-012), now fixed.
+
+    This test used to be ``..._currently_crashes_...`` and asserted that
+    ``_finalize_numeric``'s integrality check (``nonnull % 1 == 0``) raised
+    ``TypeError`` on a complex value, which one complex value beside text
+    reached through ``fd.clean``. The finalizer itself is unchanged and still
+    cannot take a complex value; what changed is that nothing hands it one.
+    ``_to_numeric_or_none`` treats a complex cell as unparseable (every target
+    here is a real dtype), so the column is judged by its real values: one of
+    three parses, the column is declined, and it comes back untouched.
+
+    The route used to be order-dependent (it raised in a fresh process but not
+    after some other work). The cause was pandas: once a cell is complex,
+    ``to_numeric`` returns its complex buffer without ever writing the text
+    cells into it, so ``"abc"`` and ``"3"`` came back as whatever numpy's last
+    freed buffer of that size held -- NaN (column declined, no crash) or a
+    number (column "parsed", then the crash). See
+    ``tests/test_exotic_values_in_numeric_columns.py``.
     """
-    # Three spellings of the same failure across pandas/numpy versions: object
-    # dtype falls back to Python's ``%`` ("unsupported operand type(s)"), a
-    # numpy complex array hits the ufunc ("ufunc 'remainder' not supported"),
-    # and pandas 1.x raises its own ("can't mod complex numbers"). The point is
-    # that it raises at all.
+    # Still true of the finalizer on its own. The message differs across
+    # versions: object dtype falls back to Python's ``%`` ("unsupported operand
+    # type(s)" on Python 3.10+, "can't mod complex numbers." on 3.9), and a
+    # numpy complex array hits the ufunc ("ufunc 'remainder' not supported").
     with pytest.raises(TypeError, match="remainder|unsupported operand|mod complex"):
         _finalize_numeric(pd.Series([complex(1, 2), 3], dtype=object))
 
-    # An all-complex column is declined before reaching the finalizer, which is
-    # the behaviour the mixed column should have as well.
+    # The parse no longer produces a complex result for the finalizer to see.
+    parsed = _to_numeric_or_none(pd.Series([complex(1, 2), "abc", "3"], dtype=object))
+    assert parsed.dtype == "float64"
+    assert parsed.isna().tolist() == [True, True, False]
+
+    # End to end: the mixed column is left alone, like an all-complex column.
+    out = fd.clean(pd.DataFrame({"v": [complex(1, 2), "abc", "3"]}), verbose=False)
+    assert out["v"].tolist() == [complex(1, 2), "abc", "3"]
     out = fd.clean(pd.DataFrame({"v": [complex(1, 2), complex(3, 4)]}), verbose=False)
     assert str(out["v"].dtype) == "complex128"
 
 
-def test_the_end_to_end_route_to_this_crash_is_order_dependent():
-    """Records an unexplained order dependence rather than hiding it.
-
-    In a fresh process ``fd.clean`` on a complex-beside-text column raises the
-    ``TypeError`` above. After some other pandas work in the same process it
-    does not — the column stops being routed to the numeric path. Both
-    ``pd.api.types.infer_dtype`` (always ``"mixed"``) and ``_finalize_numeric``
-    (always raises) were checked and are stable, so the divergence is upstream
-    of the finalizer in ``clean``'s routing. The mechanism was not identified.
+def test_the_end_to_end_route_is_no_longer_order_dependent():
+    """Formerly recorded an unexplained order dependence (FD2-012).
 
-    This test asserts only what is stable in either state: the frame is
-    returned unchanged, or the call raises ``TypeError`` — never a silently
-    coerced column that has lost the complex value.
+    It asserted only "unchanged, or ``TypeError``" because the outcome depended
+    on what ran earlier in the process. The mechanism was pandas reading
+    uninitialised memory for the text cells beside a complex value (see the
+    test above). Now the outcome is the same in every state: never an
+    exception, never a coerced column that has lost the complex value.
     """
     frame = pd.DataFrame({"v": [complex(1, 2), "abc", "3"]})
-    try:
-        out = fd.clean(frame, verbose=False)
-    except TypeError as exc:
-        assert any(m in str(exc) for m in ("remainder", "unsupported operand", "mod complex"))
-        return
+    out = fd.clean(frame, verbose=False)
     assert out["v"].tolist() == [complex(1, 2), "abc", "3"]
 
 def test_date_objects_with_a_missing_cell_still_normalize_to_datetime64():
 
@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+"""Exotic Python values in an otherwise numeric or textual object column.
+
+FD2-012: one ``complex`` value beside text crashed ``fd.clean`` on default
+settings. pandas' ``to_numeric`` returns a complex result as soon as one cell
+is complex, and it never writes a text, bytes or bool cell into that complex
+buffer -- those cells come back as whatever the last same-sized buffer freed
+by numpy held. The garbage counted as "parsed", the column passed the numeric
+threshold, and the real-number finalizer's ``% 1`` raised ``TypeError``.
+
+The numeric targets here are real dtypes, so a complex value is not a number
+this step can hold. It is treated as any other unparseable straggler: it
+counts against ``numeric_threshold``; when the column still converts it is
+quarantined (set to missing, original kept in ``report.coerced_cells``); when
+the column does not convert it is left exactly as it was, and the
+type-contamination warning names it.
+"""
+
+import fractions
+
+import numpy as np
+import pandas as pd
+import pytest
+
+import freshdata as fd
+from freshdata.config import CleanConfig
+from freshdata.report import CleanReport
+from freshdata.steps.dtypes import (
+    _to_numeric_or_none,
+    refine_numeric_after_semantic,
+    suggest_conversion,
+)
+
+COMPLEX_VALUES = [
+    pytest.param(complex(1, 2), id="complex"),
+    pytest.param(np.complex128(1 + 2j), id="np.complex128"),
+    pytest.param(np.complex64(1 + 2j), id="np.complex64"),
+]
+
+NUMERIC_STRINGS = [str(i) for i in range(1, 21)]  # 20 of 21 parse: >= 0.95
+
+
+def _clean(values, **options):
+    out, report = fd.clean(pd.DataFrame({"v": values}), return_report=True,
+                           verbose=False, drop_duplicates=False, **options)
+    return out["v"], report
+
+
+def _poison_numpy_buffer_cache(n: int, value: complex) -> None:
+    """Free an ``n``-cell complex128 buffer holding *value*.
+
+    numpy hands small freed buffers straight back to the next allocation of the
+    same size, so a pandas call that reads an unwritten slot of its complex
+    buffer sees *value*. This makes the pandas garbage deterministic instead of
+    depending on whatever ran earlier in the process.
+    """
+    buf = np.full(n, value, dtype=np.complex128)
+    del buf
+
+
+# ── the reported crash ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("value", COMPLEX_VALUES)
+def test_complex_beside_text_is_left_intact(value):
+    """The FD2-012 reproduction: the column is not numeric (one of three cells
+    parses), so it is declined and returned exactly as given."""
+    column, report = _clean([value, "abc", "3"])
+
+    assert column.dtype == object
+    assert column.tolist() == [value, "abc", "3"]
+    assert column.iloc[0] == complex(1, 2)
+    assert "v" not in report.coerced_cells
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("fill", [complex(7, 7), complex(np.nan, np.nan)])
+def test_parse_beside_a_complex_value_does_not_read_pandas_garbage(fill):
+    """The cause. Whatever the freed buffer held -- a plausible number or NaN --
+    the text cells are parsed as text: ``"abc"`` is missing, ``"3"`` is 3.0,
+    and the complex cell is unparseable. Before the fix the result was
+    complex128 and ``"abc"``/``"3"`` both came back as *fill*."""
+    s = pd.Series([complex(1, 2), "abc", "3"], dtype=object)
+    _poison_numpy_buffer_cache(len(s), fill)
+    parsed = _to_numeric_or_none(s)
+
+    assert parsed is not None
+    assert parsed.dtype == np.float64
+    assert parsed.isna().tolist() == [True, True, False]
+    assert parsed.iloc[2] == 3.0
+
+
+def test_result_does_not_depend_on_what_ran_earlier_in_the_process():
+    """The order dependence recorded in FD2-012: a NaN-filled freed buffer made
+    the garbage fail the threshold (no crash), a 7+7j one made ``"abc"`` look
+    parsed (crash). Both states must now give the same, intact frame."""
+    frame = pd.DataFrame({"v": [complex(1, 2), "abc", "3"]})
+    results = []
+    for fill in (complex(np.nan, np.nan), complex(7, 7)):
+        _poison_numpy_buffer_cache(len(frame), fill)
+        results.append(fd.clean(frame, verbose=False)["v"].tolist())
+    assert results == [[complex(1, 2), "abc", "3"]] * 2
+
+
+# ── a complex straggler in a numeric column is quarantined, not lost ─────────
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize("value", COMPLEX_VALUES)
+def test_complex_straggler_in_a_numeric_column_is_quarantined(value):
+    """20 numeric strings and one complex value clear the 0.95 threshold, so the
+    column converts. The complex value cannot live in Int64: it is set to
+    missing, its original is in ``coerced_cells``, and a warning says so."""
+    column, report = _clean([value, *NUMERIC_STRINGS])
+
+    assert str(column.dtype) == "Int64"
+    assert column.isna().tolist() == [True] + [False] * 20
+    assert column.iloc[1:].tolist() == list(range(1, 21))
+    assert report.coerced_cells["v"] == {0: value}
+    assert report.coerced_rows["v"] == (0,)
+    assert any("could not be parsed as Int64" in w and "(1+2j) (row 0)" in w
+               for w in report.warnings)
+
+
+def test_complex_straggler_is_handled_exactly_like_other_unparseable_values():
+    """Alignment with the existing straggler path: a ``Fraction`` (which pandas
+    cannot parse either) in the same position gets the same dtype, the same
+    missing cell and the same ``coerced_cells`` entry."""
+    for values in ([None, *NUMERIC_STRINGS], [None, "1", "2", "3", "4"]):
+        with_complex = _clean([complex(1, 2), *values[1:]])
+        with_fraction = _clean([fractions.Fraction(1, 3), *values[1:]])
+        assert str(with_complex[0].dtype) == str(with_fraction[0].dtype)
+        assert with_complex[0].isna().tolist() == with_fraction[0].isna().tolist()
+        assert (set(with_complex[1].coerced_cells.get("v", {}))
+                == set(with_fraction[1].coerced_cells.get("v", {})))
+
+
+def test_complex_below_threshold_leaves_the_column_and_is_named_in_the_warning():
+    """Four numbers and one complex value: 80% parse, below 0.95, so nothing is
+    converted and the contamination warning points at the complex row."""
+    column, report = _clean([complex(1, 2), "1", "2", "3", "4"])
+
+    assert column.dtype == object
+    assert column.tolist() == [complex(1, 2), "1", "2", "3", "4"]
+    assert "v" not in report.coerced_cells
+    assert any("looks numeric (80% of values parse)" in w and "(1+2j) (row 0)" in w
+               and "values were NOT silently coerced" in w for w in report.warnings)
+
+
+def test_complex_beside_python_numbers_in_an_object_column_is_left_intact():
+    """No text at all: pandas parses this correctly (complex128), and the
+    finalizer then crashed on ``% 1``. One of five is not real -> declined."""
+    values = pd.Series([complex(1, 2), 1, 2, 3, 4.5], dtype=object)
+    column, report = _clean(values)
+
+    assert column.dtype == object
+    assert column.tolist() == [complex(1, 2), 1, 2, 3, 4.5]
+    assert "v" not in report.coerced_cells
+
+
+def test_lower_threshold_quarantines_the_complex_value_beside_text():
+    """With ``numeric_threshold=0.3`` the FD2-012 column converts; the complex
+    value and the word are both casualties, recorded with their originals."""
+    column, report = _clean([complex(1, 2), "abc", "3"], numeric_threshold=0.3)
+
+    assert str(column.dtype) == "Int64"
+    assert column.isna().tolist() == [True, True, False]
+    assert column.iloc[2] == 3
+    assert report.coerced_cells["v"] == {0: complex(1, 2), 1: "abc"}
+
+
+def test_profile_preview_matches_cleaning():
+    """``suggest_conversion`` is shared with ``fd.profile``; it must report the
+    same decision instead of crashing."""
+    config = CleanConfig()
+    beside_text = pd.Series([complex(1, 2), "abc", "3"], dtype=object)
+    assert suggest_conversion(beside_text, config) == ("none", None, 0)
+
+    target, converted, n_coerced = suggest_conversion(
+        pd.Series([complex(1, 2), *NUMERIC_STRINGS], dtype=object), config)
+    assert (target, str(converted.dtype), n_coerced) == ("numeric", "Int64", 1)
+
+
+def test_post_semantic_retry_declines_a_complex_casualty():
+    """``refine_numeric_after_semantic`` only quarantines numeric-*shaped* text.
+    A complex value is not, so the retry leaves the column untouched."""
+    df = pd.DataFrame({"v": [complex(1, 2), "1", "2", "3", "4", "5"]})
+    report = CleanReport()
+    out = refine_numeric_after_semantic(df, ["v"], CleanConfig(), report)
+
+    assert out["v"].tolist() == [complex(1, 2), "1", "2", "3", "4", "5"]
+    assert "v" not in report.coerced_cells
+
+
+# ── controls: columns without a complex value convert exactly as before ──────
+
+
+@pytest.mark.parametrize(
+    ("values", "dtype", "expected"),
+    [
+        (["1", "2", "3"], "int64", [1, 2, 3]),
+        (["1.5", "2", "-3"], "float64", [1.5, 2.0, -3.0]),
+        (["1e3", "2", "-0.5"], "float64", [1000.0, 2.0, -0.5]),
+        ([str(i) for i in range(19)] + ["$1,234.56"], "float64",
+         [float(i) for i in range(19)] + [1234.56]),
+        (["inf", "1", "2"], "float64", [float("inf"), 1.0, 2.0]),
+    ],
+)
+def test_ordinary_numeric_text_converts_as_before(values, dtype, expected):
+    column, report = _clean(values)
+    assert str(column.dtype) == dtype
+    assert column.tolist() == expected
+    assert "v" not in report.coerced_cells
+
+
+def test_ordinary_text_straggler_is_still_quarantined_as_before():
+    column, report = _clean(["abc", *NUMERIC_STRINGS])
+    assert str(column.dtype) == "Int64"
+    assert column.iloc[1:].tolist() == list(range(1, 21))
+    assert report.coerced_cells["v"] == {0: "abc"}
+
+
+def test_all_complex_object_column_is_still_declined_before_parsing():
+    """``infer_dtype`` reports ``"complex"`` and the column never reaches the
+    numeric path -- unchanged by this fix."""
+    column, report = _clean(pd.Series([complex(1, 2), complex(3, 4)], dtype=object))
+    assert column.tolist() == [complex(1, 2), complex(3, 4)]
+    assert "v" not in report.coerced_cells