Adaptive rank allocation for LoRA, allocating more parameters to important layers and fewer to unimportant ones, consistently improves efficiency under supervised fine-tuning (SFT). We investigate whether this success transfers to reinforcement learning, specifically Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). Using gradient-magnitude profiling on Qwen 2.5 1.5B with GSM8K, we find that it does not: proportional rank allocation degrades accuracy by 4.5 points compared to uniform allocation (70.0% vs. 74.5%), despite using identical parameter budgets. We identify two mechanisms behind this failure. First, the gradient landscape under GRPO is fundamentally flatter than under SFT, the max-to-min layer importance ratio is only 2.17x, compared to >10x reported in SFT literature. All layers carry meaningful gradient signal; none are truly idle. Second, we discover a gradient amplification effect: non-uniform allocation widens the importance spread from 2.17x to 3.00x, creating a positive feedback loop where high-rank layers absorb more gradient while low-rank layers are progressively silenced. Our results suggest that gradient importance does not predict capacity requirements under RL, and that naive transfer of SFT-era rank allocation to alignment training should be avoided.