Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) has become a key technique for improving reasoning abilities in large language models, yet its behavior under different domain sequencing strategies is poorly understood. In particular, the impact of sequential (one domain at a time) versus mixed-domain (multiple domain at a time) training in GRPO has not been systematically studied. We provide the first systematic analysis of training-order effects across math, science, logic, and puzzle reasoning tasks. We found (1) single-domain generalization is highly asymmetric: training on other domains improves math reasoning by approximately 25\% accuracy, while yielding negligible transfer to logic and puzzle; (2) cross-domain interactions are highly order-dependent: training in the order math$\rightarrow$science achieves 83\% / 41\% accuracy on math / science, while reversing the order to science$\rightarrow$math degrades performance to 77\% / 25\%; (3) no single strategy is universally optimal in multi-domain training: sequential training favors math (up to 84\%), mixed training favors science and logic, and poor ordering can incur large performance gaps (from 70\% to 56\%). Overall, our findings demonstrate that GRPO under multi-domain settings exhibits pronounced asymmetry, order sensitivity, and strategy dependence, highlighting the necessity of domain-aware and order-aware training design.